Talk:68th Armor Regiment

2nd Bn

Wasn't there a 2nd Battalion under the Combat Arms Regimental System, too? I seem to remember that 2-68 was the armor battalion in Baumholder (2nd Brigade, 8th Infantry Division) in the late 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SEWalk (talk • contribs) 09:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a 2nd Bn that was reassigned from 8ID to 1AD in the late 80's I was in that unit until 1997 in which we participated in Intrinsic Action and IFOR. 2/68 AR was reflagged 1/35 AR after the return from IFOR in 1996. 75.70.249.25 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)bgloss

The 8th Infantry Division in US Army Europe (USAREUR) in the 60s-80s included: 1-68 AR and 2-68 AR (Baumholder), 3-68 AR and 5-68 AR (Mannheim). 4-68 AR was part of the 82nd Airborne at Ft Bragg, NC at the same time.----

Motto translation

The article's main infobox has the unit's motto ("Ventre a terre") and its translation ("Bellies to the ground"). The motto is in French, and the form of the French word "ventre" is singular in number, and would properly be translated "belly" and not as a plural ("bellies") as given in the infobox. I know little of French and its idioms, but if the motto refers to the unit, as a whole (as many unit mottoes do, although many others do not, and refer to the members of the unit, instead), then the translation of the word as singular, as is its form (that is, "Belly to the ground"), would make sense. I have communicated before, with the US Army's heraldry office, and they are happy to provide answers. They are the authority to consult, regarding this question. catsmoke (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

New tank company under 1 IBCT, 82nd Airborne

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/297992/light-armored-unit-activated-82nd-airborne-division

Sammartinlai (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The new unit is in provisional status and was created locally, not activated by orders from HQ Department of the Army. As such, its designation is not recognized or authorized by HQDA. As a provisional unit, it has no connection to the lineage of 4-68th.VilePig (talk)

Please cite your source. --McChizzle (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The source is Steve Everett who handles Armor and Cavalry unit histories and lineages at the US Army Center of Military History, Fort McNair, Washington, DC. His email to me read: "This issue came up several weeks ago and the provisional unit has declined all efforts to correct its designation. I'm getting inquires from vets and others asking about the so-called reactivation of A/4-68 AR, but its usage is not authorized or recognized by HQDA. It is unfortunate that the battalion's veterans are getting excited about something that actually has no connection or lineage with the 4-68 AR. I'm trying once again to get the issue corrected." His email address is stephen.e.everett.civ@mail.mil - feel free to confirm this information directly. Whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not, this is the reality.VilePig (talk)

Per Wikipedia's rules, it's on you to prove your statement, particularly when it conflicts with other published information. In other words, you saying that someone said something is defined as "hearsay" and demanding that the world trust you or email your source directly to confirm your statement is not how things work. You are highlighting a possible internal Army disagreement that has not been officially acknowledge in the public domain. Once there is an official Army comment/position in the public domain from the U.S. Army, your information remains "hearsay." --McChizzle (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There will be no articles available for referencing, in either the military or civilian press, regarding the provisional nature of this new unit. DA doesn’t work that way. The 82d created a unit on its own and gave it a designation familiar to veterans, but without DA authorization or recognition it remains a provisional unit. To be officially authorized and recognized it must have been activated by DA orders and funding which simply don’t exist. There is no “internal disagreement” between DA and the division. DA is the final arbiter on such matters, and when DA’s Center of Military History says something, you can make book on it.

The designation given to this provisional unit was an early clue that something wasn’t right. Instead of an entire battalion, only Company A was created, yet it was given the title of “Company A, 4th Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment.” This is no battalion, just a company, and DA would have never given a separate company such a nonsensical designation. D-68th yes, but not A-4-68th when there is no 4th Battalion.

Eventually this will become common knowledge.VilePig (talk)