Talk:10th Mountain Division

Question

How is this unit related to the division that fought in Italy during World War II? I do have some materials about the older unit I could contribute, but I don't know when the older division was disbanded & the newer one created. -- llywrch 23:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch, If you read the article you can see when 10th Mountain Division of WWII was disbanded and when the current 10th Mountain was activated. Even though it was some 30 plus years later the division retains the lineage and heritage of the WWII Division. At Fort Drum, New York a wonderful museum exists with many articles from WWII, many of the street names and buildings are named after soldiers and actions of the 10th Mountain in Italy. Mark O'Dell 9 October 2008

Page move

I think moving this page from 10th Mountain Division was a bad idea. Inserting "U.S." isn't necessary for disambiguation. It's like the Coldstream Guards -- there's only one unit that uses this name. I suggest that it be moved back. JamesMLane 05:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There are other 10th Division units in other countries, but no other 10th Mountain Division. There is no need to over complicate it by adding an unneeded qualification. --rogerd 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was undecided about this for awhile, since as far as I know, the above comments are correct, and the name been officially changed to Mountain instead of Infantry. However, the reasons I finally decided to go along with the change were:

• • The naming convention states "The disambiguator is not necessary in cases where the name of the country is already present in the name of the unit, or where the name is clearly unique. In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be pre-emptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit." So, since a bunch of countries don't have their militaries listed yet, I thought it was better to be proactive.
  • Next, it doesn't really matter too much what the page/article title is. It doesn't complicate things, since people can call (link) it however they want by [[10th Mountain Division (United States)|Whatever name you want the link to be]].
  • I used the AWB program to find all pages that linked to the original page and changed the links accordingly, though maybe the name on a few slipped through the cracks, so they appear with the "(United States) disambiguator. If so, they are easy enough to correct, or you can supply me with the pages and I can can add a new name to the link.

I know how you feel about unit names. I'm ex-Army myself and take pride in my old unit as well, but I didn't change the name of the unit, just the page title the unit's information is on. It can still be referred anyway you wish. wbfergus 15:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Riva Ridge

The horse is named after the German position in Italy, taken by the 10th Mountain Division in WWII. There's 5-figure coverage of that action on the Web, NPR is publicizing some coverage of it today, and the horse article mentions it but the unit's article does not, at least by name. A lack that deserves correction.
--Jerzy•t 19:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Added WWII Task force --dashiellx (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The 10th Mountain & Operation Downfall

According to my father (who was in the 10th during WWII), this division was scheduled to be part of the invasion of the home islands -- an assertion he's repeated many times over the last 4-5 decades. However, the article on this event fails to mention the 10th having any part in this. Can anyone provide a reliable source that confirms what my dad has always told me -- or at least confirm that other members of this unit believed they would have been fed into that meatgrinder had there been no other options? -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Combat operations for the division ended with the surrender of the remaining German forces in Italy on 2 May 1945. The division returned to the Hampton Roads (VA) port of embarkation on 11 August 1945 and arrived at Camp Carson, CO, on 16 August 1945. It was inactivated there on 30 November 1945.

In the January-March 1983 issue of Trading Post, the magazine of the American Society of Military Insignia Collectors, author Al Kauffman wrote:

"Since the 10th Mountain Division was one of the last to enter combat, it was to be used in the projected invasion of Japan. The plan was to reorganize it as a standard infantry division and transfer it to the Pacific. These plans ended with the surrender of Japan in August, 1945."

It does indeed appear that the 10th was to go to the Pacific war, but its move was overcome by events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Elvis entry not cited

The mention of Elvis as a notable veteran is not cited and was orginally posted by someone not signed in under a username on 25 Sep 08.
The entry stated "Elvis Presley was assined to what is now 10th BSB". The article was later cleaned up on 1 Oct 08 by Lolitatronic to its current state.
I recommend removing Elvis from the list of notable veterans until a sufficient source is presented. As he was in the 3rd Armored Division, but not the 10th Mtn as far as I can tell.
Mark.odell (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

XVIII Airborne Corps?

I was in the Gaggin' Dragons back in 2006-07, when all the restructuring was going on; as far as I know, the Corps lost most of their divisions, which became subordinate to FORSCOM. That could have changed since then, but is there a source stating that the unit is still under XVIII Corps? Parsecboy (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Starting Review --Vinay84 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• First opinions, Most of the info seems to have come from Self-published sources,like Fort Drum Public Affairs Office . Self-published sources are largely not acceptable.
  • Per my other GA articles, this has never been a problem at the GA level. At A-class, yes, but it's never prevented promotion in a GA article, per 95th Infantry Division (United States), 100th Infantry Division (United States), and others. —Ed!^(talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• The title of the subsection "legacy" is inappropriate since the unit is still active. Suggest split into "In popular media" and "Alumni" sections.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• The Article seems well referenced and well written
• IS the redlinked Panama Canal Division the same as Panama Canal Division (United States)? Please check all redlinks for spelling and articles in different spellings
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Vinay84 (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Request authors to do another redlink check for the remaining redlinks.Do not remove any, just check once.--Vinay84 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done. As far as I can tell, all of those subjects don't yet have an article on Wikipedia. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Lot of single sentence paragraphs especially in the initial sections.See if they can be merged or expanded.--Vinay84 (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merged most of these sentences. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• File:U.S. Army soldier securing site - Parun, Nuristan - 06-27-2007.jpg in Initial deployments section has a delete alert.
  • Replaced image with another copy without the notice. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some statements need citation and have been marked in the article. --Vinay84 (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Which ones? I can't find any "citation needed" templates. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is a subordinate unit of the XVIII Airborne Corps and the only division-sized element of the US Army to specialize in fighting under harsh terrain and weather conditions. Move the statement into the article proper and give a reference.
  • Done. That statement is reiterated in the "Organization" section, with a ref. —Ed!^(talk) 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job till now. --Vinay84 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• There are dead links :E.g. Lineage and Honors of the 10th Mountain Division and 4th Brigade Combat Team Website . Check the links and references and if possible update them.
• Since you already have Fort Drum website among the references, there eis no need for it again in Eternal Links

--Vinay84 (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done both points. —Ed!^(talk) 23:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is it.Looks good now. Passed. --Vinay84 (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

The second paragraph begins with "Activated in 1943, the 10th Mountain was the last US Army division to enter combat in World War II..." Looking at author Shelby Stanton's book that covers all US Army WW II combat units down to battalion level, we see the following:

Division - Entered Combat

• 10th Mountain - 8 January 1945
• 8th Armored - Late January 1945
• 13th Armored - Early April 1945
• 16th Armored - Late April 1945
• 20th Armored - Late April 1945
• 65th Infantry - Early March 1945
• 71st Infantry - Early March 1945
• 76th Infantry - Late January 1945
• 86th Infantry - Late March 1945
• 89th Infantry - Mid-March 1945
• 97th Infantry - Late March 1945

Given this information, can anyone defend the claim that the 10th was the last US Army division to enter combat in World War II?

User: VilePig —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can fine a page number for this source and it is reliable, the info should be included. However, since a reliable source (the 10th Mountain Division) disputes this, the place in the article where this fact is stated should say something like "The division claims it was the last to enter combat in World War II (current source) while other sources dispute this (Your source)." Hope that helps. —Ed!^(talk) 18:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the 10th was not the last combat division to enter the war. That point is indisputable since all historical documentation says otherwise. Perhaps the author of the text as currently written assumed that a division that entered the war in Europe only four months before the end must have been the last, but that's obviously not the case. At best, the 10th can only claim to be "one of the last." Others entered combat only weeks before the end. I'll run this past the U.S. Army Center of Military History in Washington, DC, and get their reading on it, but I already know the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The US Army CMH reply was, "As a policy CMH does not make statements with first, last, most, youngest, oldest, etc." Sounds like a policy crafted to keep them out of arguments between active units (commanded by colonels and generals who can make real trouble for people) and military unit veteran associations.

"Order of Battle: U.S. Army, World War II" by Shelby L. Stanton was published in 1984 by the Presidio Press, ISBN 0-89141-195X. It covers every combat unit down to battalion level and it is based entirely upon documents in Army records, not false claims. The following are the page numbers citing when each division listed above entered combat:

• 10th Mountain - page 93
• 8th Armored - page 59
• 13th Armored - page 66
• 16th Armored - page 68
• 20th Armored - page 69
• 65th Infantry - page 136
• 71st Infantry - page 141
• 76th Infantry - page 143
• 86th Infantry - page 158
• 89th Infantry - page 163
• 97th Infantry - page 174

The only way the claim made in the second paragraph could be true is if it is qualified with the statement that the 10th was the last division to enter combat among all of the divisions currently on active duty. All of the others listed above have been inactive for many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

99. Battalion (separate)

Hi,

shouldn't the 99. Infantry Battalion (Separate) be listed here somewhere ...? (That would be these guys: http://www.99battalion.org/)

MVH,

T

The 99th is mentioned at Camp Hale and 74th Infantry Regiment (United States). EricSerge (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

New references to add

I need to add these as references for the 4th Brigade changing to the 3rd Brigade. Mikeofv (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC) http://www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/2015/02/fort_polk_gains_700_soldiers_a.html http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/local/2015/02/24/fort-polk-brigade-takes-new-name/23960697/ references added Mikeofv (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of facts to consider adding

The following is based on conversations with my Dad (as stated above, a veteran of this division, & per Wikipedia rules not a reliable source) & other surviving members of this division:

• To become a soldier in this unit, the PTB looked beyond skiing experience; they also accepted recruits with substantial back country or outdoors experience. For example, my Dad spent his early childhood on a farm, & spent much of his later childhood/teenage years hunting & fishing, & was assigned to this division when he was drafted in the summer of 1943.
• Further, one needed three letters of recommendation. My Dad doesn't remember who wrote this letters, but one veteran repeated the story told to him by a recruit from New York City who joined the unit, who had no skiing or wilderness experience, yet managed to be accepted because he wrote all the letters of recommendation himself.
• I'm surprised that there is no mention of the 87th regiment in the battle of Kiska. This was the first combat any unit of the 10th Mountain experienced.
• Because this was the first mountain division the US created, a lot of experiments were made in the logistics for a mountain unit. For example, one veteran reported to me that the first thing he remembers seeing when he arrived a Camp Hale were a number of carts on sleds scattered around the base. He later learned that some civilian in Washington had come up with the idea that packs, materiel & other equipment could be easily moved by the men if given sledded carts. Unfortunately, this idea did not work in practice: these sledded carts constantly slipped into the pits created around evergreen trees in the mountains. (Anyone who has been in mountainous back country during the winter knows what I am talking about.)
• Then there was the rigorous training, which included the formidable D-series. Obviously the 10th was expected to fight in hostile weather, such as blizzards. According a veteran interviewed on the video "Fire on the Mountain", one soldier found this portion of the training so difficult he got out of completing it by breaking his own leg.
• One skill they learned was how to effectively shoot while skiing. My Dad remembers that.
• Despite all of this training in skiing with experts, members of this division did not use this skill in combat. I remember one source stating that of all the units in this division, only one patrol was conducted on skis. (Maybe it was two: my Dad claims he knows of a second.) I always marveled at this example of military preparedness.
• One detail I almost forgot. One veteran recalled that his regiment was assigned to maintain the border between Italy & Yugoslavia to prevent Tito from occupying Trieste. (Italy & Yugoslavia have disputed sovereignty of Trieste & the Istrian peninsula for a long time. The current boundary dates from the end of WWII.) They were ordered to perform this duty in their full dress uniforms, to make it even more politically costly for the Yugoslavs to push to win their claim thru occupying the territory in dispute. Unfortunately, this same veteran mentioned that all daily records of this assignment are missing from the divisional archives -- which makes this an issue beyond mere original research. Assuming this is a case of records being misfiled, maybe a professional historian or a serious amateur can clear up the facts of this story -- but adding this detail to Wikipedia needs to await the publication of a reliable source.

Hopefully a few of these details can be worked into this article so it could qualify for FA status. -- llywrch (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A point re “full dress” uniforms – he probably meant “service dress”, as the former would commonly, albeit erroneously, indicate wear of a “ceremonial” uniform, including full size medals (as opposed to the smaller miniature medals worn on mess dress and evening dress uniforms) vice ribbons on the “class A” uniform, which was the most formal uniform used by the US Army during WWII. Use of the blue dress, mess dress, and evening dress uniforms was suspended from 1940 – 1947. Depending upon nation, service, and time period the term “full dress uniform” is properly equivalent to civilian white tie and usually means that uniform worn only for the most formal ceremonies and occasions such as state dinners (i.e., evening dress). The definition of “full dress” can be somewhat confusing, but it is highly improbable that U.S. troops were wearing “full dress” uniforms overseas performing occupation duty during wartime. CobraDragoon (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I remember the words he used correctly, they were "full dress". Whether it was what is considered "dress uniform" nowadays (or prior to WWII), is not important; the point that was impressed on them was to look as fancy as possible. I know he explicitly mentioned that they had to wear white gloves. But where a bunch of GIs pulled off the front lines (& who had likely lost their service packs at least a few times, something that my Dad reported happened to him during his service) would find white gloves is a very good question. And as I said, this story would need a lot of confirmation to be included in this article; but as I wrote above I repeated the story here in hope someone would research this story & publish it in a historical journal, so there could be a reliable source we use to add it to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

I was in the 10th MTN from 1991-1993 while in 110th MI Bn and again from 1994-1997 after switching to the infantry in 1/87 IN. Whenever there was snow on the ground we used sleds to haul equipment while in the field all the time. While the sleds did sometimes have a mind of there own, hauling stuff up and down hills was a lot easier with a sled than without. I never knew the original idea was from a civilian’s donation. On behalf of my fellow mountain vets, I thank him. Solri89 (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Removed words "previously untouched" in reference to 4 BCT's deployment to Wardak and Logar, specifically in relation to the Chakh District. I went to the Chakh district in 2009 with 3 BCT. To corroborate, SGT Carlie M. Lee and SSG Issau I. Delapena KIA 15 May, 2009, Chakh, Afghanistan - Wardak Province.

References

10th’s operations in Haiti

I was part of 1/87 IN while deployed to Haiti. My company was charged with providing security at the palace on 15 October 1994 when at 1200J Aristide officially resumed office. At that time Operation Uphold Democracy ended and Operation Maintain Democracy began. Shouldn’t that operation also be mentioned under “Engagements”. Solri89 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Just removed 1st Brigade's composition in 1989

With this edit, I have just removed the individual battalions listed as part of 1st Brigade, 10th MDLI in 1989. The sources cited and linked - official lineage & honors - do not support assignment of particular battalions to particular brigades. I will copy this note to the ongoing listing at the WT:MILHIST main talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Mistake on 'Legacy'.

The book ' Fire on the mountain' is about the 10th Mt. Div.of WW2. The film (by the same name) is not.  24.19.133.46 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

About one of the Further reading items

I added a work entitled Mountaineers which is a paperback account of 66 pages about the Division's actions in Italy. From its contents & how it is written, I suspect it was a semi-official memoir of the Division. (I have access to it because my father, who was part of the Division in WWII, owns a copy.) Although we could quarrel about whether it is acceptable as a reliable source, IMHO its importance is as the source of a series of sketch maps about the Division's movements from the Battle of Mount Belvedere thru the end of hostilities, which I've seen reused in a number of other books about the unit. I would like to use these sketch maps -- they are probably the best maps available on this topic -- except for their copyright situation: this paperback has no notice of a copyright -- nor even of an author -- so I don't know if these maps have fallen into the public domain. (I suspect this is the case.) But otherwise, this deserves mention as a Further Reading. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The Library of Congress entry for this work is https://lccn.loc.gov/52016388 & dates its publication to 1950. -- llywrch (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

10th Mountain Division

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Poorly referenced 2009 GA. The original nominator has not edited since 2022.

11 citation needed tags, one section tagged as needing more sources.

I've gone ahead and removed unreferenced material from the pop culture section. This article has other issues as well including undue weight. For example, there are almost as many words written about a viral video from 2021 as there are about the 10th Mountain's role in Operation Anaconda. Schierbecker (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.