Jump to content

Talk:United States Army/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The motto on the US Army page is wrong and I don't know how to change it

Right hand side where the info is located is wrong. When I click "edit this page" I am not able to edit the right hand info box.

The motto of the US Army is not "Army Strong" or any other recruiting slogan. It is and has been "This We'll Defend," as shown on the Army flag, Army seal, and the Drill Sergeant Badge.

Someone please correct it. We change recruiting slogans as needed, the motto stays the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamspamsucks (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't fix it is because the infobox is transcluded from a separate template, at Template:United States Army. I've corrected the motto, as you pointed out. Parsecboy (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What's with the Six Sigma stuff?

The bit about Six Sigma seems fairly irrelevant, and it's written in a PR tone. Also, the sole source is a Six Sigma website, which doesn't exactly scream "objective" or "neutral."

Can this be moved to a dedicated article, or deleted entirely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.14.17.76 (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the Army officially recognizes the Six Sigma skill set with a special MOS identifier. So it doesn't need to be moved. Rarelibra (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The length of the Sigma Six information is absurdly long for this article. Four paragraphs written in a highly complimentary tone is ridiculous for a ASI that only a few dozen Officers have. The piece is longer than the most subsections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.190.62 (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Average ages for ranks

Anyone know the average ages of personnel in the different ranks. I know that the average age for Privates is 18, but I'm doing something with a friend and I need to know the average age of personnel ranked from Sergeant to Master Sergeant. I know this may not be the right place to ask this but it'd really be helpful to me if someone could tell me. 24.175.241.93 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the US army's basic training so short?

The us armys basic training seems comparitively short when compared to some other countries such as the British army, there basic training is about 24 weeks and like the Australian army which is more or less the same only slightly shorter, and then even after that you must still continue more advanced training, why is this? Is this because the US army is focused more on numbers than skill would you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.133.61 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Basic training in the US is organized differently than in the UK or other commmonwealth countries. Comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges. The Lead section in United States Army Basic Training gives a good overview of the topic. Btw, it states that US Army Basic Training is 15 weeks to over a year; Basic Combat Training is nine weeks. I think it was 10 weeks when my dad went into the Army in 1963. I don't think it is so much numbers-focused over skill, but that fact that the US Army is very large compared to the current British Army, which is actually smaller than the US Marine Corps. This means the US Army has to train a lot more initial recruits. Also bear in mind that US basic trainees generally don't get any weekend leave till they finish BCT, while the later prortions of the British Army course allow weekends off. But I'm jsut a well-read observer. I'd recommend taking your question to the Talk:United States Army Basic Training page, as most of the editors their have experience in the subject, and are probably aware of what UK basic training involves, and what makes it different. - BillCJ (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Coming from a soldier: The United States Army basic combat training lasts 10 weeks in duration. This has nothing to do with focusing on numbers as opposed to skill. With no offense inteded, it's hard to articulate this kind of thing to a civilian. While training criterea varies slightly from fort to fort, a recruit is taught army values, introduced to United States weaponry, taught to operate it, and must learn to maintain and fight with his weapon, which is either an M-4 or an M-16, depending on the training site (though it should be kept in mind, most soldiers nowadays are being issued M-4s). First and foremost, the training is very, very compacted. If a soldier has chosen a combat arms MOS such as cavalry, infantry, armor, or artillery, they can expect no phone calls or offtime with the exception of family day. A cavalry scout's training as of late 2008 lasts 18 weeks total, with about a week of reception. Please bear in mind that for guardsmen and reservists, the training can be taken during the summer for students in their senior year of high school or between college years. For active duty personnel, one should realize that they are going to be training their entire career. That 14-however many weeks is by no means their only training, not by a longshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19Delta (talk • contribs)

"The us armys basic training seems comparitively short when compared to some other countries such as the British army, there basic training is about 24 weeks and like the Australian army which is more or less the same only slightly shorter, and then even after that you must still continue more advanced training, why is this? Is this because the US army is focused more on numbers than skill would you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.133.61 (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC) " Hmm, sounds more like you are trying to force that ridiculous and unfounded insult, rather than actually objectively asking. And to the anon poster above me, you hit the nail on the head, thanks for clearing things up! Jersey John (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Concerning WWII: "Signficantly less well trained than their opponents, three out of four American soldiers did not shoot to good effect in combat" from page 521 of The War of the World: History's Age of Hatred,Niall Ferguson, Allen Lane, 2006, ISBN 0-7139-9708-7.Perhaps there is something in the idea. I do think the idea is out there that the US Army puts its best effort, intelligence, and men into supply rather than front line combat. And who is to argue with that strategy, it seems to work. (See also quote in comment below "5 ft 105 lb 12 teeth") Stikko (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Combat Maneuver units

As a Public Affairs NCO for the 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team from the 3rd Infantry Division, I feel that I have an obligation to inform you that the 3rd ID does not have an aviation brigade at Fort Benning, GA. Our Combat Aviation Brigade is stationed at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, GA.

//SIGNED//

SGT Johnathon Jobson PA NCOIC, 1st HBCT, 3rd ID 99.194.97.120 (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sergeant Jobson. Someone will fix it. Appreciate the correction. Buckshot06(prof) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


I completely understand why my previous comment was removed, however Jobson here should seperate his private life from his Army life better. In other words, his "//SIGNED//" BS is unnecesary and borders on the comical being that he used it here. Jersey John (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Term

Uh i know that i shouldnt ask this on wiki but it seems like the best place to. I want to serve in either the Army or USMC when i graduate Hischool but i dont wanna make it my life. How many years do you have to serve before you can leave? Cause you know i wanna go to college to and stuff--98.249.148.172 (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any required age to leave the U.S. Army. As long as you sign the papers to leave.--Rollersox (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Go talk to a recruiter they can tell you more then we can. But basically when you join you sign up for a certain number of years (I want to say the min is 3 but don't quote me on that). When that time is almost up you can 'reup' (sometimes with a bonus depending on your job) or try to get out. I say try because if they decide to send you somewhere (like Iraq) and your 'out' date is Aug and they send you in June they will keep you in the army until you get back from Iraq and then a few months after you get back you can get out. But you don't have to make it your life. If you go to collage first you can get a higher paying job in the army, but if you join the army before collage they will pay for you to go and you could get a degree even before getting out. "life" is around 20 years and a lot of people stay in until retirement at about 38 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.144.48 (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of Special Forces Groups

With regard to Special Forces groups, there are seven; not five as listed. Five groups are Regular Army, two are National Guard.Wikimffi (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

5 ft 105 lb 12 teeth

I came across an amazing statistic about potential recruits during WWII. "Despite the fact that the US Army was willing to accept virtually anyone over five feet tall who weighed more than 105lb and who had 12 or more of his own teeth, 40 per cent of citizens failed these basic criteria." from The Storm of War: a New History of the Second World War, Andrew Roberts, Allen Lane, Aug 2009. ISBN-10: 0713999705. Someone thinks it is not relevant in this article. Which article should it go into? Stikko (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Requirements during World War II are too specific and detailed for the History section in this article. More like an article on the Army during WWII. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
There should be such an article. In this article it could still be one of those "illustrative quotations" dropped into articles - in the same way that illustrations are. Stikko (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The article in question is History of the United States Army, currently a redirect, and the future daughter articles for the history of the US Army in specific time periods. Also Stikko, what was the page number of the quote from that book? Buckshot06(prof) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is a review with the quote. 3rd to last paragraph. Perhaps you can fact check it! Stikko (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

The article hasn't a table with military salaries. This site: [Money 1] has an article about military salaries. And this other site: [answers] tells that an American general gets US$20.000 per month = 240.000 $ Per Year. And this site: [US' salaries] tells all the salaries of American militaries. The site claims that a General's salary is about US$17,000. The article has nothing about army's salaries.Agre22 (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A large table of military salaries seems out of scope and subject to frequent changes. Maybe a summary could be included though... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
See U.S. uniformed services pay grades. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

U.S. to store $800m in military gear in Israel

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] writes that U.S. to store $800m in military gear in Israel.Agre22 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Cuba is to Soviet Union as Israel is to the United states if you think about it. username 1 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Archived -- Bullock 00:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rank Structure

The "Specialist E4" rank may be technologically meaningfull for a few, but it is essentially meaningless with respect to most, other than as a "Senior PFC" rank. Take a look at any US Army org photo showing junior EMs from, for example, the early to mid to late 1950s. Most of the rank holders are PFCs. Take the very same group and transplant it to 1964 or so & most of the rank holders are SP4s. There was no great technological breakthrough during that time which caused the massed upgrading of most PFC E3 positions to require SP4 E4 positions. Rather, tis called "grade creep", which has its origins in things other than "military competence". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, in respect to the article. Is there something you'd like to see changed? Parsecboy (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It would help in formulating my answer if, for example, parts of the above information were known by you prior to my making the Talk entry under Rank Structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was a specialist in the US Army until less than a year ago, and am well familiar with the evolution of the rank structure from the creation of SP4, 5, 6, and 7 to their eventual phasing out in the late 1970s to mid 80s. So, I am fairly knowledgeable about the subject. Parsecboy (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
So, you will agree that prior to the creation of the SP3 (E4) grade in 1955 most of the work that was eventually assigned to the newly promoted SP3's (E4s) was assigned to PFC E3s? (The E4 Corporal rank being a junior NCO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that that is correct. I still don't quite see what this has to do with this article, which doesn't really go into much detail about ranks. Perhaps it would be better to discuss this at Specialist (rank)? Parsecboy (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like what he's getting at is that Specialist should be removed from the list of ranks. Is that correct, anon? Unfortunately, if you're unhappy with the existence of the rank of Specialist, the US Army is the group to tell, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia merely reports what is fact, and it is fact that one of the enlisted ranks is Specialist. When the Army decides that not to be the case, Wikipedia will remove it. Until then, adding opinions and personal viewpoints concerning the validity and worthiness of the particular rank in the article itself are not permitted within the bounds of our editing here. If you're simply venting steam about a rank you think is pointless, OK, but what gives? Why here? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Specialist in Wikipedia is more appropriate discussion forum.
Even discussing it on the Specialist article will be a waste of time if all anon wants to do is complain. The Army has its way with evolving - some of us believe in bringing the Spec 5, 6, and 7 ranks back - but you won't hear us complaining about it here. Rarelibra (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling the only reason he thinks discussing it over there is preferable to here is maybe people like you and I won't interfere with his free complaints. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been about a month now, and s/he hasn't made any significant comments at that page either, so I wouldn't worry too much about it :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a well articulated position, which also relates to the E4 Specialist mess (its from Specialist/Talk):

"I was in the army at the time they began phasing out the Spec 5's and 6's. The Army at that time was wanting to develop leaders. That is fine and everything, but not everyone wants to be a leader - some just want to go to work and then go back home/barracks. The specialists were similar to the Warrant officers, they were technicians in the support fields, and were in leadership roles when a striped NCO wasn't around. Artillery, Infantry, Armory etc. were examples where soldiers need to wear stripes, because they need clear lines of authority/subordination. Quartermaster, Medics, Mechanics etc. are examples where specialists are needed in the chain. Too bad no one cares enough to prod the Pentagon on why they need to be put back into the ranks. MPA 22:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)"

recruiting?

why is there no section in recruiting. surely how one comes to be in the army is worth mention. in my town the recruiters hang out around the outside of bars and try to talk to you as you leave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.113.251 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

HQDA

It would be great if this article would discuss HQDA. http://www.army.mil/info/organization/headquarters/hqda/ --Sidna (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think anybody really minds of this "HQDA"...--Rollersox (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Date format

The date format in the article has been military (day/month/year) format for a while in this article. This is allowed at WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) under the "Strong national ties to a topic" section. A user today has changed some of them to US month/day/year format. The article should be uniform throughout. I think they should be changed back. What do you think? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, because after all, this is a talk page about an army, so Q.E.D, they should put military time on the page, if that's what you're saying.--Rollersox (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization

I just added a sentence to the section because organizing the Army started before the Revolution, but this article seems to start off in WWI and skips that straight to WWII. Probably there needs to be a larger article History of the United States Army, but I can't see it.--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just realised that the link is to a general Military History article, which is quite large, so maybe a separate article is warranted? Like this and this one?--Koakhtzvigad (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as long as it does not duplicate too much what's in Military history of the United States. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything on the #officers v #EM. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

US Army active man power

US Army numbers some 550,000 active troops, not the 1,000,000+ given here!

it would be like saying the British Army numbers 410,000+ troops, when only 150,000 of those are in active service. I think some one should change this. from over 1,000,000 to 550,000 Bro5990 (talk) 10:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The US Army includes Soldiers on active duty and in the reserve components (Reserve/National Guard). Your comment seems a little prejudicial against the RC folks, who just happen to be carrying a lot of the mission right now. I suggest that the real number should be left and differentiation added if you feel that increased fidelity is required. V/R -- Bullock 00:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.w.bullock (talk • contribs)

Military spending as a percentage of GDP!!

I was hoping someone might add current figures for US military spending as a percentage of GDP!! China's military's page has this figure in its info box!! I think it would be useful to know!! Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopside (talk • contribs) 20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I'm stupid!! I found that the figure I was looking for was on the American Military page, rather than the Army page!! So nevermind!! I hereby rescind my recommendation!!Lopside (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In 1969, the level of American military spending as a percentage of GDP was about the double of today. Agre22 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Role of Women and Minorities

It would be nice to see this article discuss the role of women and minorities in military history. Some useful resources (specific to the US Army)include: http://www.forloveofliberty.net, http://www.army.mil/hispanicamericans/english/about/theme.html, and http://www.army.mil/women/.

68.180.6.144 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC) EN

Reorganize!!

I propose a complete overhaul to this article. I seems to have become the dumping ground for all things "US Army". I believe that this should be the kernal and then should radiate out to the many and varied interests that have been identified here. There is a tremendous amount of redundant information. Just a thought --Bullock 02:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E.w.bullock (talk • contribs)

Motto

I cannot find an authoritative source for the Latin version of the motto ("Ea nos vallo"). The top results from search engines are either this page or a CounterStrike team. The phrase is not found on army.mil or pentagon.mil. It is not a correct translation of "This We'll Defend," nor even grammatically correct. Removing it.--VAcharon (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Revolutionary War

As far as I know, the Revolutionary War was technically fought by the Continental Army, not the United States Army as it says in the list of engagements at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyphase (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Literally, yes, the US Army never fought in the Revolutionary War. However, I would be hesitant to remove that from the page. I'd suggest putting a note under it stating that it was fought prior to the establishment of the "modern" army. Jaggers117 (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The US army conceives of the Continental army as forming part of it's lineage, i.e. the transition between Continental Army and United States Army resulted merely in a legal change of the Army's mandate not a significant change in personnel (which are the key to Army heritage) see http://www.history.army.mil/faq/branches.htm. It is much the same reason why the National Guard gets credit for being the continental militia before the United States even existed. Sadads (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Six Sigma Importance

I'm not sure why this particular program is of such importance that it deserves its own multi-paragraph section in the article, but it looks suspiciously like a well-written advertisement for Six Sigma. Gahread (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, probably belongs in an article about the Material Command. Sadads (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Doctrine?

Does the US Army still have one? Is it the Objective Force? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

CSA comments

On a ligitimate note, the recruitment practices of the CSA in no way impact the record of the US Army, being that the CSA was an unlawful assembly and never recognized as anything but a popular rebellion by the US government. I'd cite someone but its so obvious and self evident that I dont think its necessary. That being said, in the absence of the decision of a recognized court or tribunal, any critism of the US Army would be a matter of opinion, and not the subject of an encyclopedic entry. Perhaps there could be a seperate article containing criticisms. . . but factualy i'm not sure what it would consist of. Barring the actions of a few individuls the record of the US Army is exemplary of restrain and fair play as applied to warfare, even and often at its own expense. If the alledged events at Abu Ghraib had been US Army policy then criticism would be duly called for. Being that it was punishable behavior under the UCMJ and not knowingly condoned I'd cite it as an exception to the rule. If every army were to be criticised for the excesses or dailances of its individual members no such body could ever been seen as ligitimate. I've yet to see though any serious charge of genocide, or execution of prisoners, or willful targeting of civilians leveled against the US Army as a body, rather only against isolated (and few) members of its whole. To say that the criminal behavior of a few equals a ligitimate argument against the whole is absurd. Imagine calling all people in a country murderers because some people in that country have murdered. In light of the VC death squads, the purges of Stalin, the holocaust of the Nazis, or of Pol Pot, the genocide of the Kurds under Hussien in Iraq, or even the tacit allowance of drug smuggling by the army of Panama under Noriega. . . to mount any serious criticism of the US Army one would almost have to turn 180 degrees and attack the fact that it sometimes sacrafices its own numbers to avoid undue civilian causalties, or the destruction of infrastructure. These acts are contrary to the goals and welfare of an army. It is perhaps also unique in the history of armies. If you want to see criticism of the US Army on this page, my suggestion is to locate evidence of something which is deserving of criticising the body as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antirevisionisthistorian (talk • contribs) 06:48, July 4, 2011‎ (UTC)

Protect page?

I've noticed that this page gets a large amount of vandalism. I've reverted 3 in the last 2 days! I suppose that this page should be semi-protected!67.142.161.18 (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably some sort of protection is called for. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Two comments

Hi, So two corrections to one section I read in the middle of the article. It says state mililias are under dual state-national control, this was true until 2007, which President Bush federalized the National Guard. Secondly, while covering the topic of full activation of able bodied men for the Army, it meantions that the only time this has happened was in the Confederacy during the Civil War. How could you forget that the Confederacy was a seperate country for 5 years! The U.S. Treasury did not attempt to tax it, the U.S. Army did not recruit draftees from the South, and the U.S. did not have open trade relations with the Confederacy, as required in the U.S. Constitution. Nothing that happened for those 5 years counts as official history of the U.S. Army, or most anything about the U.S. government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.42.5 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ranger in ACU Camo Combat Uniform.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ranger in ACU Camo Combat Uniform.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ranger in ACU Camo Combat Uniform.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pentagon tackles toughest enemy - soldier suicides

This information would not be out of place as an addition to this article, as this is the only Wikipedia page where US Army Troops redirects. There are arguments on this talk page that this information might not be relevant, or would be too critical to consider adding. Yet, Pentagon official are saying that this is a huge problem.

"The Associated Press obtained an internal Defence Department document that showed there had been 154 suicides in the first 155 days of the year, through to June 3. That marked the fastest pace of active-duty military suicides in the nation's decade of war and represented an 18 per cent increase over the 130 suicides for the same period last year. Source
"Suicides are surging among America's troops, averaging nearly one a day this year — the fastest pace in the nation's decade of war. The numbers reflect a military burdened with wartime demands from Iraq and Afghanistan that have taken a greater toll than foreseen a decade ago. The military also is struggling with increased sexual assaults, alcohol abuse, domestic violence and other misbehavior. AP

By the looks of this article, one could surmise the Army has remained free of controversy and that all is well, making this more like a brochure than a place people can come for unbiased information. That is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines if indeed there are controversies involving the Army that can be found in reliable sources. petrarchan47tc 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you're hoping for here when you say "That is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines if indeed there are controversies..." I think you're going to need to be very specific and drill in on particular issues if you think there is something wrong here. Is the US Army article really any qualitatively different from the articles on, say, British Army, French Army, China's Army, etc? Better to point out specific problems than being vague and suggesting something is in violation of policy here without addressing the actual problem.
On the issue of suicides, if you want to add something, you should probably start be studying the article and suggesting where it should go. Until you propose some text and/or indicate where it will fit in, other editors can't really examine it in context and provide their own opinions on it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. The Army article is not unlike the Air Force article, and that is not an indication that there is no NPOV, but that there are multiple Wikipedia articles that aren't necessarily meeting NPOV by refraining from the mention of controversies. I should have mentioned that I brought this up in the "criticisms" section above, and was referring to an earlier conversation. I don't see anywhere in this article, including in the Lede, where this information about suicides rates, or any other problem the Army might be facing, would go. It's set up differently from articles I am used to. So am just asking editors here who may have some experience with this article to suggest how this can best be integrated. I don't as yet have specific wording, but I planned to just summarize the suicide rates news. Is there a separate article that deals with Army Troops? petrarchan47tc 01:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I can appreciate the difficulties you're having... after looking through the article, there really isn't a good place to fit this sort of thing in. I then decided to look at a similar article, British Army, and tried conceptualizing a place where it might fit in (hypothetically assuming that the British Army had made the news recently for a high suicide rate among UK Soldiers, etc.)... it doesn't really fit into the structure there either. It may be that the way most Wiki army articles are structured, this sort of troops-related item just doesn't mesh well. Do any other editors have any thoughts on how to handle it? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
In the earlier discussion (above) I provided a link to an article about the "high" rate of suicide among doctors. If the suicide rate for military personnel (US, UK, elsewhere) was above average, then that subtopic could go into a suicide related article. But to put suicide into these US military-organization related articles (or the articles for any other military organization) seems odd. Consider this: director Tony Scott recently jumped off a bridge in LA. Well, there is a [[Category:Film directors who committed suicide]] and there is the [[Category:Suicides by occupation]] listing (and US military personnel is a subcategory). But would it be appropriate/feasible to include a suicide subsection in Film director or Warner Bros. or Major film studio? I think not.--S. Rich (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be an allowance for Army Troops-related news to remain in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. You can't really argue that there are no controversies regarding the Army, so since there is no mention of any here, it is an indication that this article needs some work to come into compliance with WP:Lede. In the very intro it says "if there are any major controversies, they must be mentioned in the Lede". It might not be a good idea to compare this to other military articles if those are also not in compliance. There is no special set of rules for different types of articles that I am aware of. Although, lists are a type of article that don't require the addition of controversies. There are many lists in this article, maybe a suggestion would be to separate some of the longer ones into their own article. This main one could be more like a regular article. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to print negative news, I'm sorry to have to bring this issue up. petrarchan47tc 04:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Name change?

Around what time did the U.S. Army cease to be known as the Continental Army and become known as the the United States Army? Was there an act that changed the name or was it just gradual? For example, the U.S. Navy article states that the modern day U.S. Navy was created in March 1794/April 1798. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is Project Manager, Fixed Wing?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/10/mil-121009-arnews04.htm PM Fixed Wing, established in October of last year, was stood up to create a central hub to manage the Army's fleet of fixed-wing aircraft. As many as 37 different fixed-wing aircraft programs are now consolidated and centrally managed under the purview of the Project Office.

Which article covers this? Hcobb (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Department of the Army Civilians

This aticle does not mention DEpartment of the Army Civilians. The Army is made up of the active force, Reserve Compnents, and DA Civilians. I believe there are currently over 400,000 DA Civilians serving in the Army. This article should include the DA Civilians as part of the Army. Eatongeo (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Date format

Why is an article specifically about a United Sates topic using a date format that is not common in the United States? Jay32183 (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Because articles about the US military, like the military itself, use day-month-year dates. It's been a longstanding convention. oknazevad (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Army service component commands

This may have been covered but I didn't see a heading. Under Army commands and army service component commands there is:

  1. Ninth US Army that redirects to Ninth United States Army
  2. Third US Army that redirects to United States Army Central
  3. Fifth US Army that redirects to United States Army North
  4. Sixth US Army that redirects to Sixth United States Army
  5. Seventh Army (US) that redirects to Seventh United States Army
If we have United States Army Central (Third US Army) and United States Army North (Fifth US Army) why is there United States Army South (Sixth US Army) listed differently (Sixth United States Army) as the other two and not United States Army South? Otr500 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Army's war on women of color

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Army&action=historysubmit&diff=626068847&oldid=626068358

Not worth a mention? Hcobb (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Not news, etc, esp in a top-level article, besides the POV wording. - BilCat (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
So attribute the POV to the people with those views?

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/08/us_military_changes_rules_on_w.html he regulation appeared to target "women of color with little regard to what is needed to maintain their natural hair," the Black Caucus complained in its April 10 letter to Hagel. Hcobb (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Structure

OK, seriously non-expert here, but... I notice that nowhere is there a description of how the army is structured, from smallest to largest grouping. You know, platoon, regiment, division, brigade, etc.--what these are, how big they are, what level of command is at what level of grouping, etc. I can't be the only one who's interested; can someone with expertise do a breakdown? It seems like something worth having.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Link to army tactical organization structure placed on US Army page at bottom of "Regular combat maneuver organizations" section (below FORSCOM table).CobraDragoon (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You already knew of a link, whereas I was constructing an answer! The only change I might suggest is that a brigade combat team is 4500 Soldiers. But even 'an army of one' Soldier has the Family Readiness Group and a battle buddy. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all the table is a generic listing that gives typical "Strength", "Constituent Units", and "Commander or Leader" information for usual units of a particular "Name," (i.e., unit hierarchal designation) and is generally applicable to most modern armies. Second, a modern US Army BCT can range from a low of around 4,400 for an Infantry BCT to over 4,700 for an Armored BCT. However, there are several types of brigades other than BCTs, so I believe the 3,000 to 5,000 number is approximate enough for the general reader to gain a basic understanding of the organizational scheme. The table could arguably be tweaked somewhat but, for example, a communications "platoon" in the headquarters and headquarters company (HHC) of a mechanized infantry battalion, consists of only 12 soldiers, yet the maintenance "platoon" of that same HHC has 102 soldiers (larger than a tank company!). Nonetheless, 'most' platoons fall within the given range of 26-55, so again, I suggest it is approximate enough for general purposes. One must realize that while size does indeed matter as an indicator of combat power, mission flexibility, ability to sustain casualties, rank of the commander/leader, ad infinitum, that mission functionality and hierarchal relationship to higher, lower, and adjacent units is the prime determinant in a given unit's nomenclature. Thanks for your comment and, of course, if you have suggestions for changes or want to work to improve the article, table, etc., I am happy to consult with and/or collaborate with you.CobraDragoon (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Repeating the myth that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam.

"American forces effectively established and maintained control of the "traditional" battlefield, however they struggled to counter the guerrilla hit and run tactics of the communist Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army. On a tactical level, American soldiers (and the U.S. military as a whole) did not lose a sizable battle.[21]"

This is false, the US was defeated in a major stand up battle at Kham Duc. 101.175.35.178 (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

criticism?

I know this has been discussed over and over but no changes have been seen! There is obviously much criticism of the US Army and it should be mentioned here even if it is just to state why. —Preceding unsigned comnbmment added by Maxipuchi (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks – someone, thinking the same as me! Please compare de:US Army with this article! I was shocked, seeing this!
@German speakers: Please help to complete this article! Thanks --Gsälzbär (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
What criticism are you talking about? Are you referring to groups like the Westboro Baptist Church that criticizes the US Army(and anyone) as supporters of gay rights? There is a vast amount of criticism that takes place and there would be no way to list it all. More importantly if you believe criticism needs to documented on the US Army, then maybe the "Federal Government of the United States" page also needs to document criticism. Also I believe it is fairly common knowledge that the US Army faces criticism. If you want to talk about criticism then how come the German Army page German Army contains no mention of the Malmedy Massacre? Please do not be so eager to criticize the US Army if you fail to do it for yourselves. I see that as hypocritical. Jaggers117 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The massacre was committed by the Waffen-SS, not by the German Army (1935–45) of the Wehrmacht (which is not the German Army of todays Bundeswehr.Parisstreatham (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

What an incredibly biased article! Looks more like a recruiting website rather than an objective collection of information about the US Army. I see no mention of public criticism (that goes for overseas as well as in America - the Westboro Baptist Church are a fairly insignificant and small branch of criticism who are not to be taken seriously). What about allegations of "murder games" by US soldiers? Human Rights abuses? Abu Ghraib? This is nothing short of shocking propaganda! 94.194.102.89 (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Shocking describes your bad acting 94. And I sure wish that girl hadn't put her panties on that terrorist's head. You call that torture? You get wet dreams about that, don't you 94. Ever see Iraqi boys and girls with their ears and noses cut off because the let a cucumber touch a tomato. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.52.65 (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with 94.194's assessment. There is nowhere in this article to put news like this:
Army suicides doubled last month from June's total
It does indeed look like a recruitment page here. According to WP:LEDE, you don't have a choice whether to print controversies here - if there are any prominent controversies, they must be included in the Lede. petrarchan47tc 22:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that some editors want to put this topic into a criticism section is telling. That is, they don't want to improve the article as much as to poke a finger in the eye of an institution they don't like. Consider this: suicide is a problem amongst doctors (See: http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/profession-with-highest-suicide-rate.html ). Would it be appropriate to put a ==Criticism== section into the Physician article? Or how about Michael Vick? (He was involved in illegal dog fighting.) Should we have a Criticism section in Professional sports that uses crime as a topic? (Here is a starting point for research: http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/123.nflviol.pdf .) Point is -- when you start with the premise that you can use a news article about suicides increasing from one month to another as the basis for a criticism section, you are injecting POV into the article.--S. Rich (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Where did someone suggest a criticism section? Am I missing something here? petrarchan47tc 03:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Also try to steer clear of false equivalencies in your response. According to WP:Criticism, "policy requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia", however a section devoted to controversies is not the recommended approach. It it says, "The ideal approach is to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections. The article does not have a dedicated "Criticism" section." As far as the suicide rate, it is possible that this information is too new to be presented properly and in context. But the fact that this article looks more like a brochure than an encyclopedia, and that one cannot find any shred of a viewpoint other than official Army views is alarming to say the least. petrarchan47tc 20:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact a criticism section was suggested here: Talk:United_States_Armed_Forces#Criticism. (I apologize for not pointing that out earlier.) In any event, the arguments apply to both articles. Actually, this is a question of article management. There are thousands of criticism subtopics relevant to the US Army and/or US Armed Forces, from the grub, to merits of weapons systems, to military justice, to cost, to quality of training, to .... But WP:Criticism does not tell us such criticism should be in or omitted from any particular article. (E.g., that this article or that article should have a criticism section.) Rather, it allows for criticisms to be presented in general. Thus, you could have (and do have) criticisms of Army BDU design in Battle_Dress_Uniform#Criticism_of_the_BDU. Would it be appropriate to add such criticisms to this article? Hardly. And it is even less appropriate to bring in the issue of suicide as a criticism simply because suicide in the military is the hot news topic right now. --S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the question of "when" this news becomes appropriate for a Wikipedia article might take a while to answer. Time will tell. You are right, it is a hot topic right now in the news. We'll see if folks were overreacting, or if this is encyclopedic information at a later date. Which article would you suggest would be a better fit? The problem is, "US Troops" redirects here, so for now this would be the best fit. Personally, I'd prefer not to confound this discussion with numerous examples of what won't work, and just stick to this one. For the record, I do not have criticisms of Army BDU design, and never mentioned it until now. petrarchan47tc 21:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there already exists an article about war crimes commited by US armed forces shouldn't this article at least link to it? For reference see here: United States War Crimes --paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.130.78.138 (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No mention whatsoever of the 1970's at all let alone the "Hollow Forces era". Pathetic. 101.175.35.178 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Army. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

National security strategy

I am hoping that National security strategy[1] can be an item in this article. I will wait for a reply. I would appreciate a constructive suggestion for its location in the encyclopedia, as I am trying to establish its context for a subpage of this article.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ National security strategy

I reverted the edit regarding CINCAF

Because Mr. Trump is not yet legally Commander in Chief. This can easily be added on the 21st or 22nd, but currently is incorrect. L3X1 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your response was priceless. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 17:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

General Order 2017-07

An IP cited a non-existent General Order 2017-17. I found citation http://www.apd.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/go17-07_Web_Final.pdf . We will need to update some articles. In the meantime I will comment-out 2nd Army. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

POV

It's POV to accept at face value the US Army's position that it was in Western Europe to defend it. No doubt the Soviets used a similar justification. We shouldn't. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it was US Army Doctrine up to the fall of the Soviet Union. Now that the world has changed, TRADOC has shifted as well, in the current Army Operating Concept, which is quite a bit more flexible. The Youtube clip chronicles this. Minute 9-10 was for the Cold War. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Not Wikipedia's doctrine. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
What reliable published sources do you have for it being otherwise? - BilCat (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't need them. There's no onus on us to accept the word of either side in the Cold War. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That would depend on exactly what wording you're objecting to, and what you want it changed to. - BilCat (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The current wording mentions only defence. While I accept defence was part of the reason for the US and Soviet military presences, it wasn't the only one. I changed 'concerns over the defense of Western Europe' to 'concerns over a potential conflict in Western Europe' and 'in anticipation of a possible Soviet attack' to 'in anticipation of a possible conflict'. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The current wording is in the context of what the US Army stated were its reasons for being there. What reliable published sources state that defense was not the only reason? You can't just change cited content because you think it's biased or wrong, even if it's from a primary source. - BilCat (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on United States Army. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Title 10 versus title 32 - status soldiers

I found a citation for dual-status soldiers: Title 10 versus title 32 - status soldiers. It's a nice discussion about growing a skill set while on the job, but also a career decision, see Foreign area officer. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

OPCON needs to be disambiguated for the encyclopedia

JP-1 defines OPCON one way, in terms of command (see p.xxi):operational control ], but the Army also uses OPCON It's not just academic. When there is a mission, there is a concept of operations for it (not the same). Some special forces soldiers died in Niger because of a change of mission, and their Captain used the same concept of operations when updating his data as part of his job.

But because USARAF is short-handed (the Captain was actually doing a Col.'s job during the preparation), it appears that the meaning 'concept of operations' got mixed up with 'operational command' because his mission's air support was nonexistent, as determined during the post-mortem. Can any editor guide the encylopedia about a proper disambiguation. I bumped into this when working on Army Futures Command. See the edit history about the usage of OPCON in several ways (check my contribs). I could use the guidance in the proper nomenclature for the Army way. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Perhaps an editor could comment on Talk:United States Army Futures Command#Operational control? --19:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Answered. See the diff. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Further information on the distinctions between COCOM, ADCON, OPCON, TACON. This is a citation about the command of sustainment. --12:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Joint operations, Interoperability, Stability operations

Found Citation for Joint operations, Interoperability, Stability operations AUSA forum: Joint operations, Interoperability, Stability operations Might this topic be included as a separate section in the article? Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancheta Wis (talk • contribs) 12:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Preview widget for this page currently shows "The US sucks" in the text area.

I.e. when you mouse over a link to this page that is embedded on another page. I don't know how to edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.33.205.209 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I get the same thing logged out in Chrome, I will try and purge associated pages to see if that worksThanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Page purged, and I no longer get the issue. Anyone else? Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Infantry OSUT

The latest contribution leaves unsaid the career paths for NCOs for the new 11Bs and 11Xs. There are a number of possibilities, because unit cohesion would be high for each cohort of new soldiers. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

AFC SSI

The AFC SSI is the Army Logo, for now[1] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Every subordinate unit that doesn't have their own SSI wear the SSI of their higher headquarters. Thus, all those units listed without an SSI would need to have the Army HQ SSI repeated, and repeated, and repeated... That's not a very good way to represent these units defined in these tables. --McChizzle (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ AFC SSI is the Army Logo, for now

Army Acquisition Corps

Editors needed: We are still missing United States Army Acquisition Corps. The Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) was established in 1989. Here are some references to help start the article:

  • (2014-10-15) Army Acquisition Corps is only 4% of the 40,000-person Army Acquisition Workforce (AAW)
    • Commissioned officers in the U.S. Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) are designated as FA51 officers and can be assigned to 5 of the 13 acquisition career fields (ACFs).
    • MOS 51C NCOs are in the contracting acquisition career field (ACF), and function as contingency contracting NCOs responsible for acquiring critical supplies, services and minor construction in support of Army, joint and coalition forces.
  • ASA(ALT) is Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology
    • Principal Military Deputy (PMILDEP) to ASA(ALT) also needs an article. The PMILDEP is also Director of the Army Acquisition Corps
    • United States Army Futures Command is the missing piece for Army acquisition, in order to improve the modernization process. The PMILDEP is also Director of Combat Systems for Army Futures Command.[1]

References

  1. ^ Army Directive 2018-15, section 6b: "PMILDEP will additionally be AFC director, Combat Systems"

Thanks in advance, --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you have what you need to start a new stub of an article (i.e. "go for it"). --McChizzle (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Paywalled site

I am embarrassed to have inserted a paywalled ref. The selection was not deliberate; it just seemed like a good source, suitable for casual browsing. Upon reflection I will revert it soon unless another editor beats me to it. If you have never visited the ref you can see the data, but I had to clear cookies to redisplay the data. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • In general there's nothing wrong with using a subscription source (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). These are similar to referencing an out of print book. But if a comparable free source is available then use that or cite both sources if the free source is less detailed/less complete. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Winston Churchill quote

The quote is at the beginning of the "Planning" section. It's not controversial, but why is it here? Wikipedia isn't a novel, and an epigram feels out of place. Delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodicompton (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is not suitable for an encyclopedia. I will remove it. Ergo Sum 01:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of MOS debate at United States Space Force

Please be advised there is currently a debate on WP:MOS at Talk:United States Space Force#MOS that could affect the article pages of other U.S. Armed Forces branch pages.Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

United States Armed Forces

@Fnlayson: My point still stands. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see it being correct either as U.S. Armed Forces or United States Armed Forces – my only concern is that the formatting is applied to the service branches articles consistently. Garuda28 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The first 2 sentences of the Lead list "United States" three times. This seems overly repetitive to me given that U.S. (or US) is common, standard acronym per the relevant MOS section. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"The first 2 sentences of the Lead list "United States" three times." – this is nothing unusual or reprehensible. 'U.S.' sure is a common acronym, this is why I don't object its usage in the other sentences of the lead, but using it in the first sentence, would clearly lack the formality worthy of an encyclopedic article. Colonestarrice (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Manpower data

The citation for the Army's strength numbers has more up-to-date information (July 31, 2020) but the link to DoD Personnel, Workforce Reports & Publications is a jsp-- https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/stats_reports.jsp

The DMDC publishes monthly updates on the active manpower in the DoD, by rank: https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/searchResults.jsp?search=Active+Duty+Military+Personnel+by+Service+by+Rank

For example, on 31 July 2020, the total number of generals in the Active Army was 305 = 133+108+45+15 (BG+MG+LTG+GEN). There are reports for ARNG in a slightly different format.

DoD is cutting back on the number of generals with a 10% 25% reduction by 2023,[1]: 11:10  which would bring the Army's total down to 275, which remains above 229, under the statutory limit of 231. (That would explain why Fort Bliss' CG is now a one-star instead of the two-star we have been seeing previously)

References

  1. ^ The Hon. David Norquist, Deputy Secretary of Defense, DoD, 10 Sep 2020 Defense News Conference

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"Mission"

I'm deleting the Mission section because it is a mission statement. Meesher (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to get consensus to delete this first. What you are citing is an essay mainly about mission statements by companies, and not a MOS specific policy. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not appropriate. This isn't a corporate mission statement, the topic of that essay, and it's not a verbatim copy. It's critical to understanding the subject to know what their scope of operations covers, and that includes what they're tasked to do by law. More importantly, once you were reverted, you are not supposed to make the same edit again while discussion is ongoing. oknazevad (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Please wait

Several posts[1][2] on the rescission of the appointment of the newest Secretary of the Army makes our latest edit premature. Perhaps we should hold off on that update for now?, at least until the Senate clarifies its intent. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ David Aaro (27 May 2021) Confirmation of first female Army secretary approved, then rescinded, by Senate
  2. ^ Davis Winke (27 May 2021) Wormuth confirmed as first woman Army secretary — then she was unconfirmed

Missing Cyber Corps

Cyber Corps is not included in the Army Branches at the bottom of the page. The US Army Cyber Corps was established on 01 September 2014.

There is an article: Cyber Branch (United States Army)[1][2][3][4][5] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Nation's Army in Cyberspace
  2. ^ ARMY CYBER
  3. ^ DoD Budget Appears To Cut Cyber Offense, Beef Up Defenses "$284.4 million cut to $147.2 million in 2022 versus a requested $431.6 million" for FY2021
  4. ^ Army shares details on new electronic warfare units
  5. ^ Army research budget focuses on tactical electronic warfare architecture

Mexican Revolution, as viewed from Fort Bliss

I found some source materials, photographs from the archives of El Paso Public Library, and a local El Paso photographer, [Aultman, Otis A., 1874-1943], 100 year old images (therefore out of copyright). They are fair use, at the very least; they have been digitized and are on a website. Perhaps some present-day Soldiers might recognize what has remained the same about the Army, a century later.

There was another El Paso photographer: Horne, Walter H., 1883-1921. Originally from Maine, Horne came to El Paso for the warm climate for his TB, when Mexican Revolution broke out.

Some fair use applications:

Lead image

While the current lead image (Service Mark) is heraldically and historically pleasing, it is also important for the lead image to be the most common representation of an organization - in this case the Army logo. From MOS:LEADIMAGE "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" and "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."

The current image, the Army's service mark, is not commonly used within the Army or to represent the Army, outside of memorabilia, Veterans merchandise, or when . The Army's logo (adopted in 2001), on the other hand, is not just used in all Army marketing, but also used extensively within and outside the service to represent it (making it more than just a marketing tool). For instance, the Army logo is used on nearly all Army websites (not just recruiting), such as army.mil (not geared towards recruiting like goarmy.com). The Army logo is also used as a shoulder sleeve insignia and is approved by the Institute of Heraldry [1] for the Headquarters Army staff and those in basic training (see [2] for image of GEN McConville wearing it in his AGSU). The Army service mark, on the other hand, appears to have fallen into disuse since the adoption of the Army logo in 2001, which has, for most purposes, entirely replaced it.

In summary, the Army logo is more recognizable to the average user, in greater widespread use (both within and outside the Army), and is not just used as a marketing logo. It is the best fit for the lead image as it is the primary emblem of the Army, even though some of us, myself included, do hold a personal preference for more traditional iconography. Garuda28 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:United States Space Force#Lead image
I found the term General Service Army Eagle with the iconic Army Eagle under Specialist, as well as the Army Eagle on the newest Army Greens Cap. Note the similarity to the
Insignia on US Army Officer's cap. The same eagle is on the disk of an Enlisted Troop's cap for the Army Green Service Uniform (AGSU). The metallic insignia color is specific to the uniform (gold for ASU, bronze for AGSU). However the device metallic color for US Army Officer's and Enlisted caps before the current AGSU was uniformly lustrous gold, not the quiet bronze of the current AGSU. A WWII Army Eagle still shines, on the period caps (they must use real gold plating).
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This was settled in the linked discussion. I also don't understand what your point was. oknazevad (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Multi-domain task force (MDTF)

As of 02:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC) MDTFs 1, and 2 have been created for INDO-PACOM, and EUCOM,[1] respectively. Where might they be placed in the article?

References

  1. ^ U.S. Army Europe and Africa Units

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Army/Archive_3&oldid=1168629579"