- Roy_A_LingleHi Bob! Hi Folks!
- bsmart
- Roy_A_LingleHi Folks!
Interesting report on Iwo Jima. It has been a while sense I read about that battle. This is the first time I have heard that a U.S. Army Infantry (145th) Division had moved in and replaced the VAC.
Roy I think you mean the 147th Infantry Regt. (Seperate) There were no Infantry Divisions above the 106th
That was another alertness check to see if anyone was paying attention to my flub up! Well done Bob! You passed the test!
I guess I forgot who was writting that report. It is comman in the Marine Corps to refur to regiments by their number and the title Marines. As in 9th Marines is the 9th regiment of Marines. While the Army normally refurs to divisions by the number and type. As in the 106th Infantry is the 106th division of infantry. So when I saw the 147th Infantry, I forgot a Marine was writting that report.
No divisions above 106? I guess that explains why I had never heard of the 147th Infantry Division.
Sgt, Scouts Out!
- SabotI think they should have gone to a pseudo-regimental system when naming the BCTs. Instead of having 1st Bde, 3rd ID, it should have been named after one of the major regimental units from the brigade (for instance, 66th Armor). Then the battalions in the BCT would be 1/66, 2/66, 3/66 etc.
Take a walk through the Infantry Museum at Ft. Benning. You would be surprised at how many "armor regiment" insignias were originally infantry regiments. The infantry used to own the tanks. One of my old regiments was 68th Armor. That was once 68th Infantry Regiment (Light Tanks).- Neil_Baumgardner- SabotI think they should have gone to a pseudo-regimental system when naming the BCTs. Instead of having 1st Bde, 3rd ID, it should have been named after one of the major regimental units from the brigade (for instance, 66th Armor). Then the battalions in the BCT would be 1/66, 2/66, 3/66 etc.
Interesting... But the branches/schools would oppose that - a lot...
Would all armor/infantry regiments become generic maneuver regiments? - which would mean effectively merging the armor & infantry branch into a generic maneuver branch. We might be headed in that direction eventually, with the move of the Armor Center & School to Benning - but no merger of the branches as yet...
Or would infantry battalions in an Armor BCT become an infantry battalion in an armor regiment? And vice versa? Armor back in the infantry branch? My head is spinning...
And never mind the supporting artillery, forward support, and engineer battalions...
Neil
- Doug_KibbeyWell, hell! Call me old-fashioned (because, in fact, I am....not for nothing does minha esposa call me "meu vaio") but if we're improvising units to the mission, what was wrong with "task force X"or if really short-lived, a "reinforced whatever" if you have to "go heavy"...since surnamed units (i.e. "Team Desobry") are out of security/fashion these days. At least everyone understood what you meant in the context mentioned by Bob (though I wonder, from afar, if he meant "Combat Command" as opposed to "Combat Team").
A lot of this unit nomenclature seems like just so much sophistry to this guy. Sorry....just had to vent. Rant mode off. We now return you to our currently serving forces, already in progress.
- Doug_KibbeyAt least everyone understood what you meant in the context mentioned by Bob (though I wonder, from afar, if he meant "Combat Command" as opposed to "Combat Team").
- bsmart- Doug_KibbeyAt least everyone understood what you meant in the context mentioned by Bob (though I wonder, from afar, if he meant "Combat Command" as opposed to "Combat Team").
I chose my words with care
All times are GMT - 6 Hours