Talk:List of formations of the United States Army

Airborne Divisions

Some of the airborne divisions (most especially the 80th, 84th, and 100th) were created/activated after World War II in 1946 and only lasted until 1952. These divisions basically were an extension of the originating Infantry Divisions (example: 80th Infantry Division, after deactivation as an Infantry Division, became an Airborne Division until it's final deactivation in 1952). This brings up the question of whether or not the Airborne portion of their history should be included in the same article as the Infantry portion, or if it should be put into a separate article since--technically--the divisions were separate?

Further, we have the 11th Airborne Division that, between the years of 1963-1965, was reactivated to do helicopter "Air Assault" operations (similiar to what the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) did later and does now). Interestingly enough, though, when reactivated for these test operations, the division was not classified as Airborne but quite literally as Air Assault, thus making it from `63-`65 the 11th Air Assault Division. I realize some people call the 101st the 101st Air Assault Division, but this is incorrect, whereas it was correct to call the 11th the 11th Air Assault Division. Interesting, no? This brings up the question of whether a new entry should be made under the name '11th Air Assault Division' for the brief period the 11th was testing Air Assault theory.

Perhaps a compromise can be reached with redirect pages to a single article?--SOCL 02:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As noted above, the 11th was a TEST division--that was part of its title. It's mission was not to conduct combat air assaults but to test. A nit-pick--but that's why the 11th was chosen to be the unit to test airmobility (as another matter of curiousity, the battalions testing the theory were all battalions traditionally part of the 2nd Infantry Division. The 11th passed into history and its battalions were re-designated battalions of the 1st Cavalry Division)--Buckboard 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Infantry Division Numbering

The numbering system for airborne divisions is part of the infantry branch, not it's own seperate branch—the same goes for the mountain division. So the 11th Infantry Division is actually the 11th Airborne, and not a seperate division. The 80th Airborne Division is simply a redesignation of the 80th ID from 1946-1952. For those reasons, the airborne divisions and mountain division should be reintegrated into the infantry division list.--SOCL 21:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't entirely true. While it does appear this way now, there were actually divisions already designated as the 10th, 11th, 13th, and 17th Divisions. Had these units been reactivated for World War II, they would have been standard infantry divisions with their original unit patches. While there can be some argument that the 10th Mountain's unit designation and patch was a simple modification of the original 10th Division's, this is unlikely. As far as the airborne divisions are concerned, it must be noted that the only reason the 82nd and 101st became airborne divisions is due to the fact that the Regular Army had no desire to test such a concept (the 82nd and 101st were originally reserve divisions). Further, as the Army began designating active airborne divisions, it started with 11 and continued with 13 and 17. There was also a 15 on the rolls, and although completely conjecture on my part, the sixth planned airborne division would probably have been designated the 19th Airborne Division. There is also the matter of the "phantom" airborne divisions (6th, 9th, 18th, 21st, and 135th) which, again, would have broken the infantry division numbering system.--JKGolden 03:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

INFANTRY CORPS

Sorry, but whereas there were such things as Airborne Corps and Armored Corps in the US Army, there has never been anything designated as an Infantry Corps outside of the German Army. What you call Infantry Corps are actually known as Army Corps.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Is it neccessary to have the "U.S." in the name of the units, especially when this page/article is already designated "United States Army"? It's not like somebody will be coming to this page looking for units of the German Wehrmacht or anything. It seems a bit redundant to include that as part of the unit's name, especially when it's not. It's not the "U.S. 2nd Infantry Division", but just the plain old "2nd Infantry Division", even if it is sometimes referred to that way in literature to distinguish it from similarly named units in multi-country 'engagements'. wbfergus 15:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Format for listing units

I changed the format of the divisions which are listed on this page since, it is clear that the units are American (U.S.), therefore I removed it. -Signaleer 09:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Locations

As this is a historical list of Army formations, why are the HQ locations included? HQs change periodically and quite often, and that sort of information clutters up the page. Also, that stuff should be included on that particular unit's page, anyway. Would it be cool to delete all of the extraneous stuff and simply move it to the actual entry?--JKGolden 18:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, wouldn't this page be easier to navigate if the only information was the name of the formation, its official nickname(s), and its status (such as years active or "phantom" or whatnot)?--JKGolden 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Division Numbering

I'd also like to shift the non-designated divisions (the World War I, pre-World War I, and modern reserve divisions) to their own category. Any objections?--JKGolden 18:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Infantry Division Naming Conventions

Anybody else have a problem with the "Light Infantry Division" category? I've already changed it to "Light Division" (which was an actual designation, while "Light Infantry Division" was not), but I've left the existing Infantry Divisions (Light) in it (save for the 24th, which was never light). If this is what we're doing, should I go ahead and make "Heavy Infantry Division," "Motorized Infantry Division, and "Mechanized Infantry Division" categories? Seems a bit overkill to me. Why not just designate (Light),(Heavy), etc., after the Infantry Division entry?--JKGolden 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)