Talk:Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division

BCT?

A Combat Aviation Brigade is not a Brigade Combat Team because it lacks the elements that make the BCT a "team". The elements of a CAB are specific to Army Aviation and are not plug and play with any BCT formation. --Born2flie (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor typo. Fixed it. —Ed!^(talk) 17:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

The History appears to be taken from the 10th Mountain Division history, and does not distinguish which aviation elements were involved in which operation. For instance, a battalion task force from the Brigade served in Operation Restore Hope, not the entire Brigade, but the subsection discusses the infantry's involvement and none of the aviation operations.

In the Honors section, it mentions the 10th Aviation Brigade being awarded a Meritorious Unit Commendation (MUC) for service in Iraq for 2003-2004. The 10th Aviation Brigade was deploying/deployed to Afghanistan in 2004, so I'm not sure how the Brigade could have been awarded a MUC for 2003-2004 in Iraq. Now, elements of the Brigade were awarded the MUC for their experience during that time; C Company, 1st Battalion, and A Company, 2nd Battalion. 1st Battalion, 10th Aviation was awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation for service in Iraq from 2005-2006, also per the cited reference. But these awards do not transfer to the parent unit who did not participate.

The Readiness controversy section has little to do specifically with the CAB, and deals mostly with an issue for the Division. --Born2flie (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Combat Aviation Brigade vs. 10th Combat Aviation Brigade

With the exception of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), which has two combat aviation brigades (101st and 159th), divisional combat aviation brigades are not numbered, and in this case it's simply "Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)." The error shown in the article is due to a common misperception that exists throughout the Army. The correct designation can be confirmed with Ned Bedessem, the Aviation POC at

• US Army Center of Military History, ATTN: AAMH-FPO (Mr. Bedessem), 103 Third Avenue, Fort McNair, DC 20319-5058

• Ned Bedessem, Force Structure and Unit History Branch, US Army Center of Military History, (202) 685-2732; DSN 325-2732, edward.bedessem@us.army.mil

If CABs within divisions were numbered and carried the same number as the division, then the 1st Infantry Division, 1st Armored Division, and 1st Cavalry Division would all have a unit called the 1st Combat Aviation Brigade, which would also duplicate the designation of the 1st Aviation Brigade, a combat unit that served in Vietnam and now exists as a schoolhouse unit at Fort Rucker, AL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs)

• While the official designation maybe Combat Aviation, 10th Mountain Division, they call themselves the 10th Combat Aciation Brigade according to thier own webiste. Additional if you look at 25th ID's page they call themselves 25th CAB, the 82nd says 82nd CAB, 1st Cav is listed as 1st ACB (Air Cavalry Brigade), 3rd ID says 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade. While the force structure branch may say one thing the units themselves all say something else. As for 1st ID, 1st CD and 1st AD all having a 1st CAB, they'll do the same as they did with the MI battalions and use a different number. Ryan.opel (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Generally I prefer the most common designation for a unit (Enough of this "2d Division" nonsense already) but in this case the problem is the website is probably just trying to be more readable, because inserting "Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division" into a real sentence would be confusing. I would suggest keeping the title at its official name and indicating in the lead that it is often called the "10th Combat Aviation Brigade." Otherwise, it will be just too confusing. —Ed!^(talk) 17:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is only one correct designation for a unit, and that is the one assigned by the Department of the Army (DA). Units aren't given the option of creating fanciful names for themselves that sound more glamorous, such as "1st Air Cavalry Brigade" or "10th Mountain Combat Aviation Brigade" in place of "Combat Aviation Brigade" - although they are quite fond of doing so. Locally made-up names are just that - made up. (Units are also fond of wearing unauthorized uniform items, such as patches on the side of helmet covers, Stetson hats in Cavalry units, Airborne tabs over non-Airborne unit shoulder patches, maroon berets in non-Airborne units, etc. Like calling a unit by a made-up designation, wearing unauthorized uniform items doesn't mean it's correct - it simply means it's widely done.) Like Division Artillery in the pre-2005 force structure, these CABs have no numbers. All across the Army, there are units that have gotten "creative" with their designations, calling themselves things they are not or never were, and this applies in particular to aviation units. Unit websites are not always authoritative, but instead often just perpetuate inaccurate, made-up information. As for MI battalions, these too received their designations from DA. All had DA-assigned numerical designations, not something created at the local level. (Note: MI battalion numerical designations were not the same as the division numbers. For example, the 1st Infantry Division had the 101st MI Bn, the 1st Armored Division had the 501st, and the 1st Cavalry Division had the 312th. ) The confusion is understandable, since most types of brigades have a number, but divisional CABs (with the exception of the two in the 101st Abn Div (AASLT)) do not. If there's any doubt about a unit's correct designation, contact Ned Bedessem at his phone number or email address above. He speaks for DA, and anything that conflicts with what he tells you regarding aviation unit designations is simply not accurate.
VilePig (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. :: Spelling and grammer errors in the following section: Lead; Organization; , and red link problems throughout the article. Some of the layout is overlapping with the "edit" fuctions.

   Fixed all of these issues. —Ed!^(talk) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

3. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

4. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

5. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

6. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

7. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

8. :: The following images: 150px and 150px don't have the permissions section filled in correctly. Without the permissions, these images could face deletion.

   I think I have added the proper tags for the images now. —Ed!^(talk) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

9. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck improving the article — Pr3st0n (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

   I have responded to all of your concerns. Thank you for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

GA concerns

This older good article (2009 promotion) does not meet the current standards (WP:GACR). There is uncited text, included two CN tags, and Global Security is used multiple times, which is no longer considered to be a reliable source. If improvements are not made, a good article reassessment may be necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)