Talk:13th Airborne Division (United States)

The Patch

There should be something in here about what the patch means. Why is there a unicorn/Pegasus hybrid on it? --151.198.110.158 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was based on a design by a grade-school girl. The original design involved a greater use of the color pink. 71.59.210.202 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

older comments

The 13th Division was one of the "Ghost Divisions" created prior to the Normandy Invasion. It was created out of green US recruits and recovering veterans and was designed to throw off Nazi spies and saboteurs. Recently disgraced General George Patton was designated as their Corps commander in a bid to make them seem like more of a threat. 70.194.23.103 14:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Safekeeping

Copy and pasting this information into the talkpage for safekeeping whilst I update the article in the coming weeks:

Although assigned to the First Allied Airborne Army in Europe, the division as a whole was not committed to action in the European theater. The division continued its training in France and was alerted for several operations, but these did not materialize. One of its elements, the 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment, which was assigned to the division on March 1, 1945, had previously seen combat in Italy, Southern France, and in the Ardennes. The division returned to the United States in August 1945 for redeployment to the Pacific, but the end of the war precluded its use in combat in that theater. It was inactivated on February 25, 1946.

Units of the 13th Airborne Division included:

• 88th Glider Infantry Regiment (disbanded 1 March 1945, assets to the 326GIR)
• 189th Glider Infantry Regiment (disbanded 4-8 December 1943, replaced by 88GIR and 326GIR)
• 190th Glider Infantry Regiment (disbanded 4-8 December 1943, replaced by 88GIR and 326GIR)
• 326th Glider Infantry Regiment
• 513th Parachute Infantry Regiment (relieved 10 March 1944 by 515PIR)
• 515th Parachute Infantry Regiment (assigned 10 March 1944; replaced the 513PIR)
• 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment, (assigned 1 March 1945)
• HHB, Division Artillery
  • 458th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (75mm)
  • 460th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion (75mm) (assigned 22 February 1945)
  • 676th Glider Field Artillery Battalion (75mm)
  • 677th Glider Field Artillery Battalion (75mm)
• 129th Airborne Engineer Battalion
• 153rd Airborne Antiaircraft Battalion
• 222nd Airborne Medical Company
• 13th Parachute Maintenance Company
• Headquarters Special Troops
  • Headquarters Company, 13th Airborne Division
  • Military Police Platoon
  • 713th Airborne Ordnance Maintenance Company
  • 513th Airborne Signal Company
  • 409th Airborne Quartermaster Company

Source: US Army Center of Military History [1]

-ORBAT- If anyone can help me find the APP-6 symbol for glider Infantry; I can try and make up a graphical ORBAT for the 13th ABN DIV. Hal06 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the same one as used for airmobile infantry. Similar to the parachute symbol, but instead of the wings drooping, they go straight out at the sides. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

References

1. The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States. Combat Chronicle: 13th Airborne Division. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1950.

A question about the 517th

The article states that the 13th wasn't used during the Bulge, but elements of the 517th did participate in the battle. The statement is sourced, so I didn't want to alter it until a conclusion was reached about whether the statement should be amended or something. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. If you wouldn't mind giving me a couple of days to look into it, as I have an exam tomorrow, I should be able to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me, take your time. I read over the article, and tweaked a couple of pretty minor things, but overall, I'd say it's pretty solid prose, and everything seems to be sourced pretty well. Good work :) Parsecboy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked in my books yet, specifically Flanagan, but I get the feeling that the wiki article on the 517th might be in error - they fought in Italy and Southern France, and I believe they got their Presidential Citation in Italy. However, I could indeed be wrong, so I'll find out, hopefully tomorrow. Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that they did fight at the Bulge, my fiancee's grandfather was a member of the 517th from the start of the unit, and he's told me some of his stories from the war. The 1st BN of the 517th in fact won the PUC during their operation around Hotton and Soy. Ahh, I think I just stumbled onto the issue here. 1st BN was temporarily ad hoc-ed to 3rd Armored for their participation in the Bulge, so technically, they weren't still part of the 13th ABN. That seems to sort things out. Parsecboy (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed, I found the same thing out last night! I'll add it in with a reference when I have a sec.Skinny87 (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Hopefully that should make sense now I reworded it! Skinny87 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, good work. Parsecboy (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

GA-On Hold

Just one thing before I pass this article-the Formation section could definately be expanded, and with expansion, more thoroughly sourced. Fix this, and I will be happy to pass. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is nothing more I can find on the formation of the unit - an airborne unit which never made a combat jump and which never even fought never merits much more than a passing mention in the books I'm afraid. I believe the section is roughly the same size as that of the 17th Airborne Division article, which was passed by yourself for GA Status! Skinny87 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I added an extra reference to the section to shore up the references, but I just can't find anything new really. Only Flanagan and Devlin even cover the division in any detail, and only Flanagan gives details of which units were originally in the division and who originally commanded it. Skinny87 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with RedMark that the article could (and should) be more thoroughly sourced.

Oh yeah, and RedMark, let's not pass this thing 'till we've agreed on whether or not it's GA (just to avoid confusion & conflict). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

1. Well written?: Pass

No objections here.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail

Although generally well-cited, I feel that several sections warrant some more citations. However, this isn't an extremely serious issue, just one to note.

Which sections do you think need citations? I'll try and find them. Skinny87 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Minor Fail

Although the coverage of their actions during WWII is very thorough, I feel that "Formation" and "Deactivation" could warrant a bit of expansion (this might even take the form of simply elaborating on why General Griner was replaced by General Chapman).

I'll try and find something, but if I can't, will that ultimately fail the article? Skinny87 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Argh! I've scoured all my books and the internet, and I can't find anything else on the activation or deactivation of the division. I don't know what to do! Skinny87 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

Wide Variety of sources used, no evidence of bias or advocacy. No objections here.

5. Article stability? Pass

No evidence of edit-warring or mass-editing. No objections.

6. Images?: Pass & Comment

Although GAN's can't fail based on images, I do feel that some images are warranted. If you are able to locate images of divisional troops or something (combat photos, headquarters, something like that), it would only add to the quality of the article.

I'd love to upload images, but I still have no idea how to upload in terms of copyright, so I don't think I'll be able to add any at the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As such, I agree with RedMark's assessment of "on hold". Contact me on my talk page if you need any further assistance and/or clarification. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to your questions

1: I think the main issue with no citations falls in the lead-section (at least primarily).

I didn't think the leadrequired citations, but if that's what is needed then I'll add them in immediately from Flanagan. Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

2: Don't worry, I won't fail the article. I think some common sense needs to be applied when passing or failing articles. This article is very close to GA, and just needs those last few minor improvements.

Thanks, but I don't intend to take this to A-Class or above, as there simply isn't the information or pictures required for that quality. I simply aimed for GA-Class as I think that's as far as the article can get. Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

3: If you are incapable of locating any more information on the activation or deactivation of the article, I'll probably allow it to somewhat go by (although it will definitely come up in peer-reviews or A-Class Reviews).

I'll look again, but there's nothing on its deactivation, though I did manage to expand the Formation section by a few sentences. Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Still can't find anything else on deactivation Skinny87 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

4: As mentioned, images aren't required. I have no issues if you can't find the copyright terms or the images themselves. It isn't grounds for failing an article.

Hope that answers your questionsCheers! Cam (Chat) 19:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Response

One more thing. As both a MoS note, as well as a technical note, it is recommended that you combine footnotes. You've got about a half-dozen "Huston, p. 140" footnotes. I'd combine these into a single footnote with the "a", "b", etc. format. I'll see if I can contact EnigmaMcmxc to have a go at it (as that is HIS area of MoS). In the meantime, everything else is lookin' good (once that combining footnotes thing is done, we should be ready to pass this beast). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be taken care of; the rest are different enough to warrant them remaining separate entries. Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Thanks for all the help everyone! Skinny87 (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think this article will ever get past GA-Status due to the lack of any more information to be added to the article. However, I do hope to eventually add pictures to it. Thanks again for all the help, and I can't wait to see it passed as GA. Skinny87 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to write it off; A and FA class articles don't necessarily have to be long; take USS Kentucky (BB-66) for example, the ship was never even completed. It's barely 17.75kb, a significant portion of which is comprised of the infobox and sources/footnotes. Remember, it's about quality, not quantity. Parsecboy (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, don't give up that easily. Some of the really-good FA's are actually really short, they just cite the hell out of themselves and have excellent writing. Now that Enigma's done the footnote formats, GA Passed. Excellent Work (once again)! Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me that did the footnotes, but no biggie. Good work again, Skinny! Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Checklinks

According to this and the page itself, the link for "http://www.history.army.mil/lineage/cc/013abd.htm" is dead. TARTARUS ^talk 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wonderful. And it would be that one, as well. Erm, I'd suggest giving it a few days to see if CMH redirects it or brings it back online. After thatm well, there's always a link to that web archive thingie. Skinny87 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Activation

I was looking at a overview of the 13th Airborne and it said that the the 13th Airborne Division was activated in Camp Mackall, North Carolina on August 13th, 1943 instead of the date and location that is stated in this article. If the article [on Wikipedia] is incorrect, then somebody please confirm it to me and make the edit, if the overview is incorrect some body state it to me. Thank You

Cheers!--Mart572 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And a few more things: it does not even state (or at least I could not find it) in the article for Fort Bragg that the 13th Airborne was activated there. This could be a simple error or really mean that the 13th was activated in Camp Mackall and not in Fort Bragg. You can take a look at the overview at [2]. And if that link doesn't work than just type in 13th Aiborne Division on your internet search engine.--Mart572 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That website isn't the most accurate, and from what I remember from writing this article, everything given in terms of dates and locations is correct. However, I'll check my sources out and reconfirm everything if you wouldn't mind waiting a few days? Skinny87 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking my sources, the information in this article [Wikipedia] is correct, and it would appear that webpage is incorrect. Skinny87 (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright Skinny, Thanks a lot for the information. Cheers!:)--Martin (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Divisional nickname?

Are you sure that the divisional nickname was "Black Cat Division"? The divional badge is a sort of unicorn. I see no cat at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Black Cats was the nickname of the 13th U.S. Armored Division...For the 13th Airborne have a try with "Lucky 13th".

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://web.archive.org/web/20080605081825/http%3A//www.history.army.mil/lineage/cc/013abd.htm
  • In 13th Airborne Division (United States) on 2011-05-23 02:58:17, 400 Bad Request
  • In 13th Airborne Division (United States) on 2011-06-01 15:06:20, 400 Bad Request

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you, bot. Unfortunately, the article made it onto the front page over 2 years later before anyone noticed! X2Y2k6 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

WWII actions

It is only by reading through the entirety of the article it is made clear this unit never actually saw combat in WWII. I'll see if I can make this more clear. CapnZapp (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

third major operation

missed participating in the third major airborne operation conducted by the Allies, Operation Market Garden. This is not sourced, nor is it directly addressed in the body of the article. So there was D-Day before Market Garden, but what was the second major operation? SpinningSpark 18:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't this article be located at 13th Airborne Division, an undisambiguated title? 13th Airborne Division already redirects here, and there are no other entities called "13th Airborne Division" other than the American division. Neelix (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most division numbers are used in more than one country, it makes sense to keep them consistent and it is also clear to anyone searching whether this is what they are looking for. Compare 1st Airborne Division (United Kingdom). SpinningSpark 23:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

13th Airborne Division (United States) → 13th Airborne Division – There are no other articles that could be called "13th Airborne Division"; adding the disambiguator "(United States)" is superfluous. According to Wikipedia policy on article title disambiguation, parenthetical disambiguators should only be used when disambiguation is requred, and then including "only as much additional detail as necessary", which, in this case, is none at all. It is more consistent with naming conventions on Wikipedia to omit disambiguators where they are not required than to include them everywhere just because they are required in some cases. The disambiguator should be removed. Neelix (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MILMOS In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit.. SpinningSpark 09:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as outlined by Spinningspark. Unit articles use this format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose same reason as above. Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This article is a member of two categories that include US Army Divisions. Except for the 82nd Airborne Division and the 101st Airborne Division it would appear that all other division articles include the disambiguator. Consistency would call for retaining it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Should have said "United States Army division article, but now Oppose per Buckshot's comment.--Lineagegeek (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose people here seem to be unaware of the Soviet 13th Guards Airborne Division which existed briefly before conversion into 98th Guards Rifle Division (see ru:98-я гвардейская стрелковая дивизия). In any case, there may be other 13th Airborne Divisions as well. Thus the (United States) in the title should be maintained. This is not a hard and fast rule, and the rule quoted above makes it abundantly clear that it should not be used in all cases. This is why I have to respectfully disagree with Lineagegeek, Bushranger, and Jim Sweeney, because there are many, many division articles with no disambiguator (eg the Syrian 15th Special Forces Division or our single Iranian armoured division article). There are a number of unit types, such as armored cavalry regiments, unique to the U.S. Army, or theater signal brigades, where (United States) has been applied unjustifiably. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Buckshot and Spinning Spark. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Thanks for letting me know about the 13th Guards Airborne Division, Buckshot! I have created the 13th Guards Airborne Division article and expanded 13th Airborne Division to be a disambiguation page. As such, I withdraw this move request. Neelix (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 13th Airborne Division (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202851/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=14131&CategoryId=8453&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=14131&CategoryId=8453&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)