![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)"
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)
It would be great if this article would discuss HQDA. http://www.army.mil/info/organization/headquarters/hqda/ -- Sidna ( talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does the US Army still have one? Is it the Objective Force? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
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.
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. petrarchan47 t c 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
This may have been covered but I didn't see a heading. Under Army commands and army service component commands there is:
Not worth a mention? Hcobb ( talk) 11:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
References
Thanks in advance, -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ Fnlayson: My point still stands. Colonestarrice ( talk) 12:05, 4 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)
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
-- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm deleting the Mission section because it is a mission statement. Meesher ( talk) 07:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
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
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.
References
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:
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)
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
-- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)"
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)
It would be great if this article would discuss HQDA. http://www.army.mil/info/organization/headquarters/hqda/ -- Sidna ( talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does the US Army still have one? Is it the Objective Force? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
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.
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. petrarchan47 t c 22:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
This may have been covered but I didn't see a heading. Under Army commands and army service component commands there is:
Not worth a mention? Hcobb ( talk) 11:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
References
Thanks in advance, -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ Fnlayson: My point still stands. Colonestarrice ( talk) 12:05, 4 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)
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
-- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm deleting the Mission section because it is a mission statement. Meesher ( talk) 07:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
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
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.
References
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:
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)
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
-- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)