Talk:1st Armored Division (United States)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1st Armored Division (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: National / North America / United States / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Untitled

Here is an important point: US Armies NEVER have Organic elements. Therefore, a division can never be said to be "part" of an Army. Divisions can be "Assigned" to an Army. Likewise, with Corps. Again, Divisions can be "Assigned" to Corps. Armies and Corps are ONLY a Headquarters and Headquarters Company, a Corps Artillery Command, and and a Corps Support Command. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st Brigade Lost History

Wow, there is 4 years of history (including an Iraq deployment) missing for 1st Brigade. In the Moving to Ft. Bliss section, it indicated the Brigade left Germany, activated at Bliss and began converting. This is not true. The Brigade activated in Oct 2008 at Bliss then deployed in Dec 2009 to Kirkuk, Iraq until Dec 2010. They started started re-flagging units in Jan 2011. DocHellfish (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback Machine lists the Forerunners. I know of "Ready First" BCT. I found a July 16th, 2009 news item for the Forerunners brigade rotation to Iraq. That one? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BROKEN LINKS

Most of the links in the References section are broken (2009-11-18). Please fix or remove them.

Currently using?

I'm sorry if its here, but I can't find what vehicles this 'armored' division uses.

TWO COLUMN FORMAT

Look at the two column format I used for the Order Of Battle. I found it over on Wikitionary, and it seems to work, but it needs refinement. Maybe some of our wikiprogrammers can do the tweaking? - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ORBAT

The current ORBAT on here in incorrect. 4HBCT's two combined arms battalions are 1-77 AR and 4-6 IN. 24.214.43.97 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Current Structure" section

Where is the information in the "Current Structure" section drawn from? I ask, because, it's not accurate. I edited the makeup of 2nd Brigade to reflect it's current structure exactly as listed on that organization's own homepage (with a reference: 2ndBCT 1AD Home Page), and it got reverted. What's up there now is not the accurate current structure, as least as far as 2nd brigade goes, but I don't want to get into some kind of revert war, so I'd rather know where this other information came from. SirValentine (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who reverted it, but I'm pretty sure the structure as it is now is wrong. There is also a 5th brigade that is part of the division that the OrBat makes no mention of. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 15:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys - this is all very, very complicated: as you know the Army is reorganizing its brigades as modular brigade, at the same time 1AD and 1Inf will return from Germany to CONUS, while the Army will send other Briages overseas to replace these two Divisions and now with the Grow the Army plan some brigades do change a second time name and location,... on top of that units shuffle into Iraq from one US base and return to another where they are renamed... in short: forget the 1AD homepage: I will try to explain:

1AD consisted of 4 brigades at Friedberg, Baumholder, Katterbach & Bamberg (all Germany), but 1AD will move to Fort Bliss, Texas, but some of its units will not make that move but will be inactivated or converted to other units:

1st Brigade: 1st Brigade cased its colors at Friedberg on April 20, 2007 - then reactivated in Fort Bliss on October 27, 2008 - there is no US Brigade in Giessen anymore (so http://www.1ad.army.mil/1ADINFOMAIN/Units%20Main%20Page/1AD_Units.htm is wrong)
2nd Brigade stationed in Baumholder will stay in Europe and reflag as 170th Infantry Brigade. Until it does reflag it will be (nominally) part of 1AD, but actually it is one of two Heavy Brigades of USAREUR. As soon as the reflaging takes place (in September 2010) a new HBCT will activate in Fort Bliss and take the name 2nd Brigade 1st AD.
3rd Brigade stationed in Bamberg moved to Fort Riley Kansas, where it was reflagged on March 28th, 2008 as 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, while the actual 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany was reflagged there as the 172nd Infantry Brigade on March 16th, 2008. A date for the activation of a new 3rd Brigade 1st AD at Fort Bliss has not yet been published.
4th Brigade was stationed in Katterbach - I don't know where that unit went; but on March 4th, 2008 the 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division was reflagged as 4th Brigade, 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss...
5th Brigade: the 5th Brigade Ed mentions is an Army Evaluation Task Force to test the Future Force Warrior system - not an actual Brigade (just in name)
2nd Cavalry Regiment 2nd Cavalry has been moved to Germany in 2006 and placed under control of 1AD for the time being, but as soon as 1AD HQ follows its Brigades to Fort Bliss it will be subordinated directly to USAREUR.

To summarize: 1AD consists currently of: 1st and 4th Heavy Brigade Combat Teams and 5th "Brigade" in Fort Bliss + 2nd Brigade in Baumholder and 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany which will soon become units of USAREUR; 1 AD has no Combat Aviation and no 3rd Brigade, but both should activate within 2009; as will the new 2nd Brigade 1st AD. The info SirValentine added is a mix of the current units of 2nd Brigade 1 AD and the future units of 170th Infantry Brigade.

My informations about the future/final makeup of all the US Divisions come from a US Army paper titled: "UNIT DESIGNATIONS IN THE ARMY MODULAR FORCE" (which can be downloaded at: http://www.cascom.army.mil/odct/Documents/AUSA_Briefing_26_Sep_05.ppt ) and from the Army GTA Media Briefing: a summary can be downloaded at (http://www.army.mil/growthearmy/pdf/gta_media_briefing.pdf ). In short, what is presented in the article as current structure is the structure the Division is in the process of taking. Probably within 2009 the transition will be complete save for the move of the 1AD HQ to Fort Bliss. As all the activating, reflaging and moving around is temporary I suggest that we keep the info about the final structure of the Division in the Current structure section. --noclador (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, in that case it should be added that the structure we show is what is planned, not what is actual. I'll do that now. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 18:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The info that I added is not any kind of "mix of the current units of 2nd Brigade 1 AD and the future units of 170th Infantry Brigade", it an accurate listing of the current makeup of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of 1AD. I know it's accurate because I've been a solider in 2nd brigade for over 3 years, but I did provide an authoritative source (the organization in question's own homepage) to back it up. I do realize that the structure will change later, but the article claimed it was the "current structure". I'm fine leaving the current structure that I'd added out, as long as what is listed in the article is accurately labelled as future planned structure, not current structure. SirValentine (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question: How appropriate is it to have these details in the article? Will most people coming to the article be looking for this information? Is it worth trying to keep up with changes in general? Might it be better to not have it or have a separate article? (John User:Jwy talk) 20:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, units don't move around in a complicated way like this very often. The past few years (and the next few) are an exception since the Army is in the process of growing the force, moving it around, changing its basic structure, and fighting two wars all at the same time. Once some of these things progress and settle down, the list will go back to being much easier to maintain. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Organization

THe article doesn't discuss the future structure of the Division. On top of that, the reasoning behind the future structure should be discussed. Why does this division get 6 BCT's when most of the others have only four? I can't think of a good reason to overload this one division, and I can't find sources to explain why. Does anyone have any sources to enlighten the subject? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 20:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The division will actually have a maximum of 5 brigades - pending what will happen with the 170th Infantry Brigade. If the 170th moves back to the USA it might become the 1st Armored's 5th Brigade... but that depends on so many factors that for the next two to three years the division will remain a 4 BCT unit. --noclador (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If 170th moves CONUS it will very likely come to Biggs AAF. They already have an IBCT footprint built and waiting. The original plan was for 170th and 172nd to come to Bliss with an additional brigade possibly at White Sands. That brigade was canceled with the 'Grow the Army' plan was scaled back. While 170th would be subordinate to 1AD, as a separate brigade (though still configured as a brigade combat team), it maintains its own patch and lineage. DocHellfish (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]