Talk:Structure of the United States Army

Initial assessment

I've just assessed this article as being start class as it is a bit short on references and could be illustrated by photos and organisation charts of the US Army. Otherwise it's off to a good start. Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a mistake on the location of US Army North...it is not located at Peterson AFB it's located at Fort Sam Houston, TX. Peterson is the home of NORTHCOM and USARNORTH is the ASCC supporting NORTHCOM but is based in Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.23 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Branch

What is a "branch"? What is a "basic branch"? What distinguishes a "special branch"? Since they are not (apparently) organizational in nature, where do they fit in the structure? i.e., definitions and distinctions (from units, command echelons, etc) would be most helpful, although I recognize, a challenge to any editor.--Reedmalloy (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions re "branch," "basic branch," and "special branch" are now answered; please see article.CobraDragoon (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Command posts

When a BCT or smaller unit is deployed, it reports its operational findings to a headquarters, which may very well be deployed to a Forward element itself. The Division HHBns train for this. Where might the 'Command posts of a mission' fit into the article? The flow of the Division section of the article seems to preclude this detail. Does it even belong in this article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "Command posts of a mission?" If you are asking to what HQ does a BCT report, when that BCT is deployed separately from its parent division, then the answer is it reports to the next higher HQ in theater. This HQ will probably be another deloyed army division HQ, but it may be reporting directly to a deployed army corps HQ or, in rare cases, to a Joint, or even a Multi-National, Task Force HQ (e.g., UN, NATO, ISAF, etc.). If this response does not answer your question, please clarify and I will attempt to respond.CobraDragoon (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not the kind of answer I was looking for. It appears that the kind of detail I was asking about does not fit on this page, which appears to be geared toward the large-scale operations we have seen in the last decade in Southwest Asia. For example, Central Command has a Forward element in Kuwait, etc. Might that camp in Kuwait be a headquarters as well? Logic says 'It depends on the mission'.

But there are missions on other scales, as well. For example, the Ebola deployments to Africa, which have just wound down. It's OK. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, as you undoubtedly understand, every military unit has a 'HQ,' as it were... even a fire team or a rifle squad have a leader, so the Forward element in Kuwait, in addition to any "mission type" units it may have (e.g., combat, combat support, combat service support) is going to have its own HQ, which then reports directly to Central Command, or some other intermediary HQ. As to the Ebola deployments to Africa, in addition to some kind of JTF HQ established specifically for this mission, any deployed units were most likely under Africa Command. If this does not answer your concerns, I am unsure of what point you are attempting to define. I know you said it was OK, but being a teacher at heart (and a retired officer with deployment experience in single-service, joint-service, and multi-national operations) I would really like to help resolve the issue. Thank you for your response.CobraDragoon (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example: the annual operational contract support joint exercise for 2015 OCSJX-15. Apparently, this combined exercise touches the joint force — all branches of DoD, and coalition partners of 3 other nations. It took 60,000 hours of planning, and is taking place right now. The purpose of the exercise, (which I interpret as its mission) is to "focus on deployment readiness, mobilization and contingency contract support to joint forces." --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, so you want to know to what higher HQ OCSJX-15 reports, correct? Since this a joint exercise occurring within CONUS, and even though it is "multi-national" (with three other nations participating), it will report to a US higher HQ because it is taking place on American soil and primarily involves US military and civilian personnel. Since CONUS is in US Northern Command's area of responsibility, OCSJF-15 reports to the Joint Staff, US Northern Command.CobraDragoon (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I got more information: "Another important part of OCS [OCSJX-15 (Operational Contract Support Joint Exercise - 2015)] is to get everyone at every level, up to the geographic combatant command, to understand it and make it a priority.". Several defense agencies, "DOD inspector general, Government Service Administration, Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Contract Management Agency." are presenting briefings to the participants in OCSJX-15. So I think they will be reporting status all the way up to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries of Defense. This is half of the exercise. Another half will be conducted in the Pacific Command to simulate "the tyranny of time and distance".

OCSJX-15 participants undergo three phases of OCS training

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is the 2016 version of OCSJX-16 Operational Contract Support Joint Exercise - 2016. The OCSJX this time will plan for a US Army United States Southern Command project, a notional South American humanitarian mission. The additional agencies for the 2016 exercise include the United States Department of State, British Army, and several South American army observers. From an operational Army point of view, it will involve contract planning for "U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, 377th Theater Sustainment Command, 1st Special Forces Group, 12th Air Force, Marine Forces South, Special Operations South, and multinational guest observers from Panama, Chile, Brazil, Peru and Colombia.". --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

History

Except for those articles which include the title "History," all articles are about the current state of affairs. I have moved some obvious history to a "History" subsection. More moving is necessary. Student7 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I moved more sections to history. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I moved a lot more to history. Unfortunately, the current state of the Army, which was a small part of history, was moved in the process. It needs to be moved back by someone knowledgeable, who understands the difference between current state of the Army, which the article is about and it's history which is a separate subsection. Student7 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes...and in the process, someone really screwed up the Table of Contents/Body of the article.... With a lot of time and effort I believe I have now straightened it out (along with some editing, as well). As the lead-in to the article states, the organization of the US Army is complex, (actually, extremely complex), and it has several overlapping/interconnected streams ranging from the purely "gun-fighter" tactical (fire team/squad/platoon, etc.) to the ephemeral esoteric conundrums of governmental banal bureaucracy (this, that, and the other "agency, directorate, and office"). Also, while this article strives to be about current organization, we cannot but help to describe some aspects of historical structure especially during this time of continued flux as the Army experiments with "new" organizations. In very recent years we have had the BCTs (which are basically Armored Combat Commands of WWII recycled and infused with modern firepower/equipment steroids), the off again/on again shell game of 'fires" battalions (what was wrong with simply calling them "artillery," anyway?) verses Division Artillery groups (DIVARTY), and Army Aviation reorganization/re-designation (oh, just don't get me started...). I believe it is appropriate, for example, to mention Army Groups, because they still exist doctrinally, and even though only used in WWII, who can know whether or not they will ever be used again. (Few people realistically believed that large armored forces including several divisions and a couple of corps under a field army would ever see combat again after the dissolution of the USSR, until Desert Shield/Desert Storm happened.) And, the "original" list of divisions was arbitrarily intended by its author to only depict those formations in existence at the height of the "Reagan era” (per his statement), so I amended it to include the other two divisions deployed overseas post WWII with a note re the additional three divisions that were organized but not deployed. (Otherwise many tens of thousands of veterans would not have their divisions mentioned when every other division that served on active duty since WWII was included in the author's list). The list of Field Armies and Army Corps lists many (in fact most) that no longer are active, and so on. So, unless someone wants to stay on top of every nuance of Army organization/re-organization/re-re-reorganization, at every turn, I believe the only sensible thing to do is allow for some generalities and historical data, otherwise someone will be posting and editing “current” US Army Structure continuously.CobraDragoon (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

History should not be mixed in with current status. It is either an article about the History of the Army or it is an article about what the Army is today.

The Army is not unique in getting to where it is from a historical pov. This article is unique, and incorrect and uncertain, by combining them both together, unable to make the distinction between the two. Student7 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the article to remove all inactivated units. Please do not rearrange the information on army branches and functional areas.CobraDragoon (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There are dates intermingled with organizations under "Basic branches and date established." Founding dates should be under "History" in chronological order. This would leave an editor free to categorize the organizations. For example "there are three logical organizations; QuarterMaster Corps, y, z. Right now the huge list is overwhelming to a reader. Student7 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why inactive corps, divisions and groups can't go into the "History" subsection. Student7 (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Structure of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208152645/http://www.sddc.army.mil:80/Public/Home/About%20SDDC/Commanding%20General to http://www.sddc.army.mil/Public/Home/About%20SDDC/Commanding%20General

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Structure of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090830141819/http://www.history.army.mil:80/books/Lineage/mi/ch2.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/mi/ch2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Structure of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424165606/http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/army/Army_Reserve_Marks_First_100_Years110015618.php to http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/army/Army_Reserve_Marks_First_100_Years110015618.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824071527/http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go1204.pdf to http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go1204.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

V Corps to reform

https://www.army.mil/article/232649/army_announces_activation_of_additional_corps_headquarters

Add it now or later?

BlueD954 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)