Talk:United States Army/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

21st century vandal

Someone has vandalized the page and I haven't a clue how to revert. 66.23.224.200 08:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No Controversy / Criticisms section?

Might want to add a controversy or criticisms section to deal with stuff like US Army involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, stance on gays in the military and illegal combatants, or other issues.

  • ( A criticism section would be fine however Gays in the Military and illegal combatants should not be in there. The Army does not set those policies. They are set by the Department of Defense and Congress. The Army merely enforces the policy. Guantanamo Bay is a Navy Base and the detention center is a joint unit. It is not run by the Army. If you want to criticze tactics, troop behavior or other aspects that is fine but Most of the criticism you want to add should be directed at a higher level of authority.--Looper5920 06:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • With the recent Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, the resignation of the Defense Secretary, and the resulting media coverage, the US Army has indeed come under criticism for torturing prisoners. It is clear that we're not talking about the behavior of a few troops, but rather a systemic problem throughout the chain of command. I think this topic should be revisited.Mobrienil 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Major Commands

I noticed that under the major command list - some links point to wikipedia articles and others point to the government website. Should we standardize this? Including a link to both would be helpful, especially if we plan on having articles for each major command on wikipedia later one. -- Dukiebbtwin


Homosexuality

I am surprised there's nothing on the US Army's anti-gay stance anywhere in the article. Not being 100% familiar with the subject I won't intervene but if anyone knows the issue well then perhaps this should be mentioned Dankru 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The US Army's "anti-gay" stance is dictated by the UCMJ and federal law. It really doesn't have a place in this article. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 07:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't ask, don't tell applies to the entire US military, not particularly the Army. <Maybe you should put it in Military of the United States. It's not mentioned there either. MPS 15:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As of 20060101, there is no "anti-gay" stance in the UCMJ. Greeky 08:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The official policy, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), is 'don't ask, don't tell.' This means a soldier cannot tell anyone if he or she is gay, and no fellow soldier or leader may ask for this information.

KnoxSGT 01:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is of little importance to the article, the goal of which is to advance one's knowledge on the Army of the United States. How it, through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, deals with homosexuality is of little or no importance here. (USMA2010 23:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

The Army considers it of little importance what is thought of to be important to discussion of the Army on this topic. Homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle and is incompatible with the Army Values. Therefore, any soldier found to be homosexual by accidental or purposeful means is subject to court martial, and possibly a prison term.

It is also to be concerned that those whose homosexual backgrounds have been exposed; via evidence, or admission; accidental or intentional; are no longer applicable to the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" law and may be prosecuted to the full extent of the UCMJ. These terms are to include an imprisonment, or death by firing squad in extreme cases.

It is important to note that the Military reserves "death by firing squad" as the most severe punishment for any infraction, from the most minor to the most severe. It is also important to note, that being a gay in the military is a serious crime. However, it has been in all cases so far that Gays have been seperated from the srvice in a dishonorable status, life intact.

Template

Would it be possible to create a template for all US Army commands and organizations. The US Army has a fairly nice command and organizational structure that would be nice to include in wikipedia. For each organization, wikipedia could list its commanding organization, current commander, etc. I am a newbie to editing the wikipedia but would be more than willing to try this project if someone could point me in the right direction Dukiebbtwin 04:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Some more thoughts on this - the army site has a nice organizational structure starting at the top - I haven't thought exactly how I want to do this - but any ideas would be nice :D. Scroll to the bottom of the page: http://www.army.mil/organization/ -- Dukiebbtwin

NPOV

It looks like a notice should be posted on Wikipedia's main page that states: "Caution: This is a site for the citizens of the United States of America." Folks, there are just too many articles filled with American information that is not really WORLD encyclopedia material or like this one, they contain things that a not NPOV like:

It should be noted here that it is the outstanding quality of the Non-Commissioned Officer ranks which has lagely built the excellent reputation of the United States Army.

...Yours Truly, DW

I beg to disagree. The NCO is one of the reasons for excellence in the US Army. One of the reason Soviet-style armies have faced problems is that there are no career NCOs.
Besides, we are talking about the US Army. Comparisons can be made in an article such as Noncommissioned Officer.

--GABaker, former Army

So, DW, you're saying that there are too many Americans on Wikipedia? There's nothing stopping you from writing articles about other subjects. -- Zoe

DW, no-one complains when the Austrians or the Belgians or the Australians or the New Zealanders or the Japanese or anyone else writes about their armies. Why should the Americans be denied what everyone else has? Take a trawl around the entries for other countries. You will see all sorts of POV violations. Honestly, when it comes to writing about their own country and their own armed forces, the Americans here do a pretty darn good job of telling it just as it is. OK, there are some appallingly shallow US POV entries where other countries are involved - take a gander at the bio of Field Marshal Montgomery for a prime example, or look at the last couple of paras on the Pacific part of WW2 for a more subtle one - but, trust me, the US Army really does have an "excellent reputation" as a fighting force at present, and the quality of their leadership and training has been a major reason for this.

Moral of the story, DW, is stop complaining and get off your arse. Write some great NPOV content to balance it up. There are quite a lot of Wikipedians from other parts of the globe, and many of us are doing just that. Everyone has areas that they have some knowledge of, and I bet that you are no exception. Come join us! Tannin

Comment: I've been going through the military stuff and adding balance myself, and I'm American. The US army does stuff differently from some of the other world militaries, mostly because we're rich but also because we're weird. See squad, fireteam, and brigade / regiment for example. It's a natural process of evolution, and if you see specific examples of non-NPOV, take up your pen and start slashing! -- clarka

You guys both have a good point, but the bigger point is the fact that more than six out of every 10 persons who use the Internet for reasons more serious than Chat and Email are Americans, and that is a fact. This is not because we have any more interest in doing this sort of work, just that we have more disposable income that gives us the chance to spend so much time on the Internet. As a retired NCO myself, I can also say that the US Army is unique in putting so much responsibility on the shoulders of a Non Commissioned Officer. We have a saying: "If you want something done, give it to a Sergeant. The only reason we need Officers is for a signature." SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not go as far as to say you are unique in giving so much resposiblity to NCOs, the British army has long been run by NCOs. The problems we are facing at the moment are largely a result of large numbers of these experienced NCOs leaving the army as a result of too many operational deployments. Also it is wrong to say the reason there are more Americans online is because of better incomes, as there are quite a few countries with higher per capita income per head than the US. Also the UK and Sweden have a higher proportion of their population online than the US, the reason there are more of you posting is because there are simply more of you!


Transatlantic flaming aside, this statement does seem rather dodgy:

"is [the US Army] generally considered the most technologically advanced [1], and the one most able to project its power."

I do agree that the US army is one of only a handful of world forces that can project any serious amount of power overseas [I would say that the others are the UK, France and possibly Italy and Spain], but to quote an article written by a former US soldier on a semi-official US army website stating that the US army is the greatest isn't really cricket. I say this for the following reasons:

1. Whilst the quote does qualify the quote with 'generally considered,' the opinions and experiences of one US sergeant cannot really be considered as widespread opinion. Soldiers of just about every army, when writing an article such as this source, says similar things.

2. The former soldier writing this article goes on to say that "Our sergeants are the envy of armies around the world," and that "America’s Army [is] the best trained [in the world]." If this soldier's opinions and experiences can be considered 'canon' enough to quote on this website, surely his comments should be quoted in their entirity. It is testament to the POV nature of the cited source that the quoter found it necessary to include 'generally considered,' and did not quote the entire statement. I would remind you that Jack Straw said very similar things in an article in the Daily Telegraph [I forget when, and cannot privide a link, sorry] some time ago. Does that mean that if I found a link to this, and placed it on the British army's entry, the British Army would be better trained and equipped than the US army? Of course not.

3. The statement that the US army is the most technically advanced in the world is highly debatable. The equipment of the US army is exported, therefore there are countries with matching abilities. Australia, for example, uses the Abrams tank. Some of the equipment of many other forces is as good as, if not better than, much US equipment. Example - the British SA80 A2 out performs the US equivolent in several ways, as does the Challenger IIE MBT, and the Bundeswehr's G36 assault rifle. The Agusta-Westland version of the Apache is effectively an upgrade. The Starstreak HMV is streets ahead of the Stinger. I could go on. This statement is the point of view of the soldier who wrote it, and echoes comments made by articles of a similar nature written by soldiers of other nations.

There is little doubt that the US army is one of the most capable force in the world. There is still less doubt that the US army is well trained and very well equipped [But the truth of the matter is that the US army as we know it has never really been tested agains a similar oponent]. The source, written by an American soldier for American soldiers, laced with superlative praise for the US army and clearly intended more as a pep talk or instrument of political persuasion than a factual piece of writing, should not be quoted as fact or interpreted as general opinion. I propose that it be removed and replaced with something along the lines of 'The US army is excellently trained and boasts some of the world's most advanced and effective equipment.' Lots of Love, Tim

Organization

Might it be possible to move this page to US Army, typing United States over and over is a bit hard on the fingers. Dietary Fiber

US Army is redirected to this site. ugen64

I find it strange that there is no page or subpage for a listing of ranks and/or insignia. Shouldn't it be here somewhere? Ilyanep

On second thought, such a large orbat on this website is inherently messy (it's kinda hard to put bullets and make it look nice with that big of an orbat). So, I just added 1st and 3rd Armies, and took out 6th Army (it's inactive). ugen64 22:19, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why is there an order of battle at all on this site? Because of its generalness, I would think the order of battle would be much smaller. I'm going to move the order of battle to "United States Army order of battle"... but seriously, I think that if we actually placed every unit in the USArmy on one page...... believe me, I've tried. ugen64 00:12, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
Or actually, I'm just gonna delete everything below brigade level (if it's there). ugen64 00:13, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)
All right, I deleted everything below brigade, except certain unattached regimental formations (where they served as brigades, with battalions below them). I will begin editing divisional pages and adding individual, more specific orders of battle there.

I dont believe that you have adequetley explained the difference between the Brigade and Regimental sized units in the unit definitions. A regiment is not solely a cav formation.

Joint Publication 1.02 states as follows:

brigade —

  1. A unit usually smaller than a division to which are attached groups and/or battalions and smaller units tailored to meet anticipated requirements.
  2. A tactical and administrative unit composed basically of a headquarters and two or more regiments or groups.

Group -

  1. An administrative and tactical military unit consisting of a headquarters and two or more battalions not a permanent organic part of the group.
  2. A unit of an echelon of the United States Air Force higher than a squadron and lower than a wing and composed of a headquarters and two or more squadrons.


Regiment -

  1. A body of soldiers commanded by a colonel and consisting of a variable number of companies, troops, or batteries.
  2. A parent military organization that may include many battalions or other units which rarely serve together but share a common history, traditions, uniforms, and other matters.
  3. A military unit composed basically of a headquarters and two or more battalions.

Battalion -

A tactical military unit composed basically of a headquarters and two or more companies, batteries, or troops.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Vietnam era the Army ordered its manuever battalions in a system called CARS (Combat Arms Regimental System). In the 50s they had re-organized the combat forces under an odd system called the Pentomic Division, in which traditional manuever units (battalions and parent regiments) and the triangular regimental system were replaced by five "Battle Groups" to fight on the "atomic battlefield". CARS was an attempt to restore the lineage, tradition, heritage, and unit history to manuever units that had been lost in the Pentomic ordering (the middle description just above). It took traditional regiments such as the 27th Infantry or 5th Cavalry and assigned their lineage to active battalions (i.e. 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry), placing battalions within their traditional division organization (27th Infantry=25th Division; 5th Cavalry=1st Cavalry Division)--although that was not set in stone--the 25th and 4th Divisions "swapped" three battalions each for much of the Vietnam War.

It was more than a bit convoluted at times ("Company F nth Infantry is re-designated 6th Battalion nth Infantry") but that was the system that the manuever battalions in Vietnam were known by. Brigades (now we get into the ROAD concept i.e. "Re-Organization of Army Division") were separate or divisional organizations with no set number nor permanent manuever battalions assigned (battalions were said to be "tailored" to the brigade) but had units attached as required by their mission. Having said all this, I believe the multitude Order of Battle systems under which the Army has operated in its 230+ years of existence merits its own main article. The US Army OB does not yet have the degree of traditonal luster as the British Army, being half again as young, but it's getting there. --Buckboard 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Transport Corps

USA transport corps 2-8-0 5820 on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway

I have this image of a US built 2-8-0 steam loco, which were built during WWII for use in Great Britain and liberated Europe. Only problem is, I have nowhere to put it; can someone knowledgeable fill this in please? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

US Army Football

heres one thing i dont understand. in the army, youre suposed to have short haircuts and no facial hair. but for some reason these guys in the u.s. army football team have long hair and facial hair. do they not have to abide by the same rules? i also dont understand how they go onto play university football afterwards. wouldnt they be a bit old?

The U.S. Military Academy (West Point) American football team is composed of cadets, who although they are in the Army, are allowed greater variations in weight standards. Before they are commissioned, cadets must meet height and weight standards. I believe they have short hair. U.S. Army regulations allow mustaches that are neatly trimmed, and you don't have to wear a crewcut.

West Point is a four-year college, and plays a regular schedule of college-level sports, including football in Division I-A, the highest level of college sports in the U.S. (Recently, very badly). The cadets who play must meet NCAA regulations for student-athletes in terms of eligibility, which means they vary in age from 18 to 24 in most cases. --GABaker

The USMA Team has to meet eligibility requirements much more stringent than the NCAA regulations. Football is strictly a recreational activity - it is NOT looked at as a form of Physical Training - and won't get you out of normal P.T. Furthermore, you have to pass ALL of your courses in order to remain in the student body, and you only get one shot at repeating a year if you fail. You can be the star player on any USMA Team, and fail one or more of your courses, and you will find yourself on the outside looking in at the end of the year. Finally, how you place in the seniority of your class has almost everything to do with which job you end up with in the Army IF you graduate. The higher your scores, the higher you place in your class, and the better shot you have at getting the Career Group and Military Occupational Specialty yoiu requested when you applied for entry.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that they're old? The average Army (for that matter, any US service academy) cadet enters the Academy at age 18, as does the average American university freshman. Some cadets come out of the enlisted ranks or attend a preparatory school, but few cadets are older than 19 when they enter. The same goes for athletes, who must meet all admission standards. --Buckboard 07:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reorganise

I think all of the pages - US armed forces, US Department of Defense, and all the services (US Army etc.) need to be reorganised, First so that there is not uneeded overlap, and Second so that Army, Navy etc. are all set out the same way (eg. similar headings and article structure, just with different content.)

and maybe Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.

The "Formations of the United States Army" section contains units that no longer exist. I think the section should be of the current organization of the Army, with maybe a separate page for all the units that have ever existed.

Flag on Shoulder

Why on the shoulders of the uniforms are the American flags backwords? This seems almost disrespectful to the flag, something that Americans hold in high regard. Kaiser Matias 16:43 4 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's what the DoD says about it: "The full-color U.S. flag cloth replica is worn so that the star field faces forward, or to the flag’s own right. When worn in this manner, the flag is facing to the observer’s right, and gives the effect of the flag flying in the breeze as the wearer moves forward. The appropriate replica for the right shoulder sleeve is identified as the reverse side flag." It's not "backwards," it's just the other side. It's not at all disrespectful. An upside down flag on the other hand is quite disrespectful. Jamesmusik 5 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
Actually, a flag flown upside down is a distress signal. --Mddake 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Legally, if you see an upside down US Flag, your next move is to call 911!!

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a note on this: the US Flag Code is silent on the wear of the flag as a patch; therefore either way is correct. The Boy Scouts, fire departments and the like wear it one way and the Army wears it tihe other- either is correct. The Army useage is covered by AR 670-9 AR 670-1. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Error in rank structure

1st Lieutenant is NOT an O-1. It is O-2. General of the Army is an O-11 not an O-10. W-5 is a MASTER Warrant Officer not a Chief Warrant Officer 5. I have the official Army "Guide for Future Soldiers and their Families" book (2004 edition) that I got from the MOS counselor and it corroborates what I am saying. Please stop reverting my changes as they are correct.

Just read what it says at the top of the table! This is the NATO rank code, not the US rank code. It says OF-1, not O-1. They are DIFFERENT THINGS. Please stop reverting other people's changes without bothering to read the article properly. -- Necrothesp 01:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

1st Lieutenants and Navy Lieutenant JGs are Department of Defense pay grade O-2. "A man's rank is what he's paid on, Captain. I'm paid at the rank of Lt. Colonel."--Owen Thursday. It's O-2, and always has been since 1st and 2nd lieutenants were made separate pay grades and not positions within a company.--Buckboard 07:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in FULL agreement with the original complaint by Necrothesp. I don't give a rat's crap about what NATO book or reference you use - in the UNITED STATES military, the 2nd Lieutenant is O-1, 1st Lieutenant is O-2, and General of the Army is O-11. What you have is a MISreference of the facts that are MISleading to those outside of the knowledge of the US rank structure. So when an English-speaking person in, say, Africa sees this, they will assume incorrectly. This should be adjusted to reflect the US labeling of the rank structure. Rarelibra 03:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC), SFC

Why does the chart have the NATO code and not the U.S. Department of Defense code. Or perhaps better yet, both. It's about the U.S. Army, I think it should show what the U.S. Army says uses for pay grade. If there are no comments on this, I'll change the chart to reflect both. PvtDeth 10:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would go with both, so that non-US readers can compare. What I don't understand is why this section is in this article as well as United States Army enlisted rank insignia and U.S. Army officer rank insignia. BTW: these articles use both NATO and US designations. In my opinion, those articles and the related text from this article should be combined into another article such as United States Army ranks. Then we have stubs like Chief Warrant Officer 2 and pan-service articles like Master Sergeant. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And it might not be a bad idea to include the Associate Press Stylebook rank useage. For example Sgt. 1st Class or Lt. Gen.. The Army Times and many DOD publications use this style. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said. The DOD rank structure should be listed instead of the NATO one. The focus of this wiki is the United States Army so therefore the U.S. ranks should be used. Having a NATO chart only creates confusion for people who are not familiar with the military. 24.8.4.188 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Ray

I'm wondering why this section is even here. The articles United States Army enlisted rank insignia and United States Army officer rank insignia (which I just found) are more comprehensive and should be linked as main articles. Those articles include both the US and the NATO codes.

Use of the term "major commands"

Since the U.S. Army uses the term "Major Command" (MACOM) with specific meaning, that is, commands that report directly to Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), shouldn't use here be the same? Specifically, Third U.S. Army is not a MACOM in the current structure. There have been discussions about making it so, but it is not. --Mddake 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ability to keep this updated

It is very ambitious to list the rank and name of the MACOM commanders here, but is it wise to attempt to do so? LTG Peake retired over a year prior to this posting, but I just now inserted LTG Kiley. Wouldn't it be better to list the authorized rank of the commander and any other titles (i.e., CG MEDCOM is also TSG) that position has? --Mddake 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if people want the names I'm sure they can find them from the Army. Cjrother 00:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring

I would suggest to source out the Revolutionary War part and delete the Formations, since this already is an article. And I don't see a historical part, which should differ from Military history of the United States, but I don't know enough. --Predator capitalism 14:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd second the moving of the Revolutionary War history. That is a huge block of text to have in there, and seems misplaced. Hopefully some one will get on that. Cornell Rockey 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • There are large portions of this article that need to be placed elsewhere with just a link here to reference them. All of the formations and gear need to be made there own pages. There needs to be a history section. One that hits all of the relevent wavetops. Bottomline is that this article needs a massive overhaul.--Looper5920 23:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the need to restructure, because this article has got more information then it can cope with, and is now bloated. --Christhebull 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

More recent numbers

can we get some newer numbers for the army size as of 2006? I've been googling but I can't find anything. A Clown in the Dark 22:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As soon as the Soldier's almanac comes out with the numbers, I will update the info Rarelibra 04:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC), SFC


Yar that would be good, looking at the numbers for women in Reserve - in brackets - most likely are wrong... maybe a misplaced zero? Knowsitallnot 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Page Restructuring project

restructure of weapons/equiment

I'm restructuring this section into the accepted "Summary/link to main article" format to cut down on size, as requested from the "United States military history task force" Wikiproject. 04:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Restructure complete. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

restructure of the formations

I've restructured the formations section into the main/sub article format. Everything removed has been added in to the subpage that it came from, no information has been lost. Next stop is listed below⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Next project to restructure

Need to size down the ranks and insignia...link to their own main/sub articles. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is in dire need of a good long cleanup. Long sections of un wikified stuff, massive number of external link, that surely could be done in a more readable way and you generally lose any sort of orientation as you read down the article. MAJOR cleanup required! Twthmoses 00:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

This article is a MESS. I think someone shoud bring this to the attention of Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. Cornell Rockey 02:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR TABLE

Can one of you table experts format the following table for inclusion? It shows the manpower strength for the Regular Army from 1919 through 1941, and explains how certain MOS's were transported from Civilian to Enlisted status. If you need inspiration, the table is found at the following link:

CHIEF OF STAFF: PREWAR PLANS AND PREPARATIONS TABLE 1.-STRENGTH OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY: 1919-1941



TABLE 1.-STRENGTH OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY: 1919-1941 a

Year Total Officers Enlisted Men Commissioned Officers Warrant Officers b Army Nurse Corps c

1919 846, 498 77,966 37 d 9,616 758,879

1920 201,918 15,451 68 d 1,551 184,848

1921 228,650 13,299 1,159 851 213,341

1922 147,335 13,248 1,153 828 132,106

1923 131,959 11,820 1,086 705 118,348

1924 141,618 11,655 1,065 675 128,223

1925 135,979 12,462 1,030 725 121,762

1926 134,116 12,143 1,327 673 119,973

1927 133,949 12,076 1,263 681 119,929

1928 135,204 12,112 1,208 699 121,185

1929 138,263 12,175 1,138 734 124,216

1930 138,452 12,255 1,089 807 124,301

1931 139,626 12,322 1,028 809 125,467

1932 134,024 12,314 973 824 119,913

1933 135,684 12,301 926 669 121,788

1934 137,584 12,283 869 609 123,823

1935 138,569 12,043 825 603 125,098

1936 166,724 12,125 784 603 153,212

1937 178,733 12,321 794 625 164,993

1938 184,126 12,522 782 671 170,151

1939 188,565 13,039 775 672 174,079

1940 267,767 16,624 763 939 249,441

1941 1,460,998 93,172 931 5,433 1,361,462

a Represents actual strength of the active Army as of 30 June of each year. Includes Philippine Scouts. Does not include cadets at the U. S. Military Academy, field clerks, or contract surgeons.

b Effective 29 April 1926, 367 Army and QM field clerks were brought into the Army as Warrant Officers.

c Included as officer personnel in this table for comparability with later years. On 4 June 1920, Army nurses were given simulated or relative commissions applicable only to the Army Nurse Corps. On 22 June 1944 they were given temporary commissions, and on 16 April 1947 were commissioned in the Regular Army.

d Data are from WDGS, Statistics Branch, "Strength of Military Establishment. June30, 1914 to June 30, 1926." Special Report No. 196, revised, 22 Jan 27.

Source: Annual Reports of the Secretary of War, 1922-1941; Annual Reports of The Adjutant General of the Army, 1919-1921; also Department of the Army, Strength of the Army (STM-30), 1 Jul 48.

External links

United States Army Ranger Association

Ranger Andy 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is huge

Do we really need all the stuff that's directly ripped from other sites? I know it's not a copyvio but it's much more appropriate to just paraphrase it. Readers really don't want to go through all that detail. A Clown in the Dark 19:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Automotive mobility revert

I reverted a change by an anon that said that the British Army was the first to achieve 100% automotive mobility, not the US Army as previously stated. I have no idea which is correct, but since both statements were unsourced I figured it would be best to stick with the version that has been in the article since February. Maybe someone who knows something about the subject can sort it out. - Jon Stockton 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The British attempted to motorize its entire force, but the Depression stalled that attempt. The USA - indeed - achieved 99 44/100% Automotive Mobility between 1939 and 1942, and the only reason they did not achieve 100% were the facts that horses and mules were needed in China, Sicily, and Italy, where motor vehicles could not go. Even now, the US military is NOT 100% Automotive Mobilized since the 1st Cavalry Division - and some other Cavalry units - maintain Horse Platoons. Yes, they exist for ceremonial reasons, but they are still part of their parent unit's structure. The British did not achieve 100% - and still haven't - for the same reason: Ceremonial horse units. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

what a mess

Holy crap, this article is horrendous. Someone should delete and start over. Desertsky85451 23:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm just up to my armpits doing just that on other articles right now, and I don't want to take on another project at the moment. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sections 5-12

Is there a point or reason to having Sections 5 through 12? They seem to be a barely comprehensible and, perhaps, unnecessary listing of units formed with citations, better suited for a research paper. If there are to be kept, they should be taken out and put a in its own subarticle, then cleaned up so it at least makes sense. The biggest problem with the sections, as I see it, is that there is no narrative explaination or purpose for what is written. It just seems like a long list of...um...what?--SOCL 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, I suppose it was done.--SOCL 19:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal

I think its about time that we start a US Army Portal... there's a US Marine Corps Portal... there needs to be an Army one too! Hal06 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

US Army#Rank Structure section cleanup?

  • Looking for input/feedback on taking out the lists following the rank tables. Some of the paragraphs and notes (company grade, field grade, etc) are keepers, but I'm not seeing the point of the lists. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

blatant mistakes

there are so many huge errors in the u.s. army structure section. first, there are no motorized infantry divisions in the u.s. army. there are armored div's, mech inf, and light inf (to include airborne, air assault, and mountain). while they might be to an extent motorized, they are not classified as such. also, the m109 howitzer listed later in the section IS the paladin. perhaps the author was referring to the since-canceled crusader sp howitzer. in any case, i will make the necessary changes. and can we PLEASE get information from after 1995, people?

Complete Rewrite

The state of this page has been bugging me for a while now, and I've written a complete rewrite at my sandbox. I know it's far from perfect (it'd be great if someone could get pictures for the history section) but I think it's a good deal better than the current article. Are there any objections to replacing the current article with my rewrite? Atb129 20:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I added a section from the present article to what you have in your sandbox. Let me know what you think. I would hold of on replacing it right away. The article has needed a serious rewrite for a long time so another day or two won't hurt until a few editors can chime in. I like what you have so far. It is much cleaner and easier to read then what is presently here but it will need some additions of course. --Looper5920 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's probably a good idea to put the unit explanations in there. I'll hold off for a couple more days. Atb129 21:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
      • All right, since no one seems to have any big opinions I'm gonna put my rewrite in. Atb129 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Uniforms

Nothing in here on uniforms and appearance. The Navy and USMC not only have sections, but also their own articles - [[Uniforms of the United States Navy], Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps. - Matthew238 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There should be an article just on Army uniforms. Hal06 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Army Aviation

I'm not currently in a position to edit the section as I feel my knowledge is too limited but I'm fairly certain the statement that the Army operates "no fixed-wing aircraft" is incorrect. Though small and not for the same type of roles the Army relies on the Air Force to perform, it still exists and therefore invalidates this statement. 147.226.247.59 05:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually here is one Army operated fixed-wing aircraft from wikipedia itself, the RC-12 Guardrail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RC-12_Guardrail 147.226.247.59 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Training

I included some information on officer training in this section, including precommisioning, OBC and the newly implemented BOLC. Hokiefan 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

172d Seperate Infantry BDE

Is there a reason why this unit is not included on the list of units. I'm pretty sure it is not being eliminated by the Army transformation. Hal06 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

actually, it's now the 172 stryker brigade Parsecboy 20:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Significant section deleted

It seems that in the many rewrites, the entire section on Army component was wiped out, including links to Regular Army, Army of the United States and National Army. This section should somehow be restored in the current writeup if possible:

Components of the U.S. Army

"Between 1775 and August 7, 1789, the established Federal Army was the Continental Army. On the latter date, the Continental Army was replaced by the United States Army under the newly-established War Department. The structure of the US Army was constitutionally established as the Regular Army, the units of the State Militias when called to federal service, and units of Volunteers that were established for the duration of the emergency. This remained the normal scheme of things until the Civil War, when the first Conscription took place. The concept of the National Army as a Conscript Army was thus established in all but name, since units were established to accommodate the use of the conscripts in combat. The last time that the Volunteer Units were utilized was the Spanish-American War in 1898. From that time forward, the Regular Army, the State Militias, and the National Army were codified as standard. In 1908, the Organized Reserve Corps was established to provide trained Officers and Enlisted Men for immediate use in time of war.

During the First World War, the "National Army" was organized to fight the conflict. It was demobilized at the end of World War I, and was replaced by the Regular Army, the Organized Reserve Corps, and the State Militias. In the 1920s and 1930s, the "career" soldiers were known as the "Regular Army" with the "Enlisted Reserve Corps" and "Officer Reserve Corps" augmented to fill vacancies when needed.

In 1941, the "Army of the United States" was founded to fight the Second World War. The Regular Army, Army of the United States, the National Guard, and Officer/Enlisted Reserve Corps (ORC and ERC) existed simultaneously. After World War II, the ORC and ERC were combined into the United States Army Reserve. The Army of the United States was re-established for the Korean War and Vietnam War and was demobilized upon the suspension of the Draft.

Currently, the Army is divided into the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the United States National Guard. Prior to 1903 members of the National Guard were considered state soldiers unless federalized by the President. Since the Militia Act of 1903 all National Guard soldiers have held dual status: as National Guardsmen under the authority of the governor of their state and as a reserve of the US Army under the authority of the President.

Since the adoption of the total force policy, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, reserve component soldiers have taken a more active role in US military operations. Reserve and Guard units took part in the Gulf War, peacekeeping in Kosovo, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Various State Defense Forces also exist, sometimes known as State Militias, which are sponsored by individual state governments and serve as an auxiliary to the National Guard. Except in times of extreme national emergency, such as a mainland invasion of the United States, State Militias are operated independently from the U.S. Army and are seen as state government agencies rather than a component of the military.

Although the present-day Army exists as an all volunteer force, augmented by Reserve and National Guard forces, measures exist for emergency expansion in the event of a catastrophic occurrence, such as a large scale attack against the US or the outbreak of a major global war. The current "call-up" order of the United States Army is as follows:

US Army Beret Flash
  1. Regular Army volunteer force
  2. Army Reserve total mobilization
  3. Full scale activation of all National Guard forces
  4. Recall of all retired personnel fit for military duty
  5. Re-establishment of the draft and creation of a conscript force within the Regular Army
  6. Recall of previously discharged officers and enlisted who were separated under honorable conditions
  7. Activation of the State Defense Forces/State Militias
  8. Full scale mobilization of the unorganized U.S. militia

The final stage of Army mobilization, known as "activation of the unorganized militia" would effectively place all able bodied males in the service of the U.S. Army. The last time an approximation of this occurred was during the American Civil War when the Confederate States of America activated the "Home Guard" in 1865, drafting all males, regardless of age or health, into the Confederate Army. A similar event, albeit in a foreign country, occurred during World War II when Nazi Germany activated the Volkssturm in April and May of 1945." -Husnock 18:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Organization as it IS or WILL BE?

Should the "Combat Maneuver Organizations" section represent the Army's organization as it exists TODAY, or as it WILL BE in 2009 (as the paragraph at the beginning of the section states)? Most of the units listed are shown in their planned 2009 configuration, but a few are not (e.g., 4th Infantry Division). I don't have a preference either way, but it should be the same for all the units. Mike f 20:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, I'm going to format the unit list to show the Army's planned 2009 configuration for the locations of division headquarters and maneuver brigades. Again, the list is 90% formatted that way right now - I think only 4th Infantry Division needs to be changed. Mike f 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mention the Army's Recruiting Problems?

Unlike the US Air Force and Navy, it seems that the Army is having trouble recruiting these days, ever since problems in Iraq started to manifest themselves. Does this deserve a spot in the article, like in a 'Contemporary Issues' section or something? --64.12.116.71 22:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Unless you can cite a reliable source to back up that position, no. While the Army missed its recruiting goal in FY2005 (92%), they are at 104% of the FY2006 goal as of the end of August. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/09/mil-060908-dod02.htm) Also, you'd have to cite sources that link the dip in recruiting in 2005 directly to the war in Iraq as opposed to economic conditions or something else. It's also worth noting that retention numbers are also above 100%, so perhaps the war in Iraq isn't as much of a discouragement to Army service as it may seem. Mike f 15:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Civil War origins

I'm removing this addition by 216.185.126.254:

After most states in the South seceded to form the Confederate States of America, primarily because of the issue of states rights (contrary to popular belief, slavery was made an issue during the middle of the war to keep england out, not to mention the Lincoln only freed the slaves in the south not the ones in the slave states in the north), CSA troops opened fire on the US fort Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, starting the war.

... and reverting to the previous version:

After most states in the South seceded to form the Confederate States of America, primarily because of the issue of slavery, CSA troops opened fire on the US fort Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, starting the war.

Bottom line, the origins of the Civil War are complex and not appropriate for detailed, extended discussion in the U.S. Army article. Slavery as the casus belli may be an oversimplification, but is all that is really necessary for this portion of the article. 216.185.126.254, if you want to debate the origins of the Civil War, the best place to do it would be here or here. Mike f 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Let's bomb our friends."

"Let's bomb our friends" isn't actually the official motto of the U.S. army, is it?

Caesar

No. I reverted that nonsense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Recruitment Age

Are there any campaigns to raise the age that you are allowed to join the armed forces? Personally, I think you shouldn't be allowed to go on active service in a war zone until you are 21 atleast. You can't drink in some states until 21, so why should you be allowed to murder 'the enemy' at 16? Ethoen 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well before you start making offensive comments like that "murder the enemy", you may want to get your facts straight: like the recruitment age is 17, not 16 and that's only with parental permission, and in most cases you'll be 18 before you are deployed to a combat zone. If you're going to troll, take it elsewhere. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Apologies. But i don't conceder the phrase "murdering 'the enemy'" to be offensive. One human killing another is called murder. The army just discuses the murder by de-humanising the opposing side, 'the enemy'. Oh and btw, I meant to write 18 instead of 16. I don't think that 17, 18, 19 or even 20 is old enough to make a suitable decision about weather or not to join the army and cope with modern warfare where the opposing side hides its self amongst civilians (i.e. no clear uniform). Oh and what is trolling? I'm just here to discuss the issue of age and joining the army. I presumed that was what the discussion section was for. Ethoen 23:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is not an open forum for the subject- see Help:Talk page#Wikipedia-specific help. BTW, new topics go at the bottom of the page (just click on the + tab at the top to create a new topic). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Army/Archive_1&oldid=356462185"