Talk:United States Army Europe and Africa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

just a note: General Bernard Montgomery leads nowhere, while General Bernard Montgomery does.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugen64 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 12 November 2003.

---

With French and American forces established ashore in significant numbers, Seventh Army and the French Army B came under the new 12th Army Group headquarters.

Is this true? Because later in the war The 12th Army Group consisted of US First Army, US Third Army, US Ninth Army and US Fifteenth Army. If the Seventh Army and the French Army B were transfered back to the 6th Army group then the word temporary should be added to the sentence. Also what is French Army B'? I thought that only the French First Army was involved in the invasion. Philip Baird Shearer 17:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Corrected USAREUR Webpage link

Old link was dead. Found and replaced link to point to new command webpage.

Xanadu

I removed the following from Xanadu, it might be of interest here (but it's completely unsourced).

---

• In 1953, Seventh Army Special Services in Stuttgart, Germany produced an all-soldier original musical called Xanadu which toured both civilian and military theaters over a five year period. The story dealt with Marco Polo's visit to Kublai Khan, and the experienced cast and writers were drawn from military units all over the world in an effort to bring a genuine Broadway-style show to audiences in occupied Europe.

---

MickMacNee (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Formerly known as USAREUR?"

As far as I know, 7A is still USAREUR, as it was when I worked there. If you click on the 7A website, it leads you to USAREUR. CsikosLo (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MERGER OF SEVENTH ARMY AND USAEUR

They are NOT merged.

USAREUR is the Army Service Component Command (ASCC) assigned to the United States European Command (USEUCOM) and provides continuous oversight and control of Army operations throughout the EUCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR). Seventh Army is the next level command below USAEUR, and has direect control over the Field Units. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Added Eric Shinseki as a notable commander of of 7th US Army

Considering Gen. Shinsekis' current post as VA Secratary under President Barack Obama, he deserves notable mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.109.12 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nickname/Motto

I am not aware of nicknames for 7th Army or USAREUR. The 7th Army motto is "Pyramid of Power" and USAREUR is "Sword of Freedom." "Seven Steps to Hell" is an unofficial motto. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WW2 history

Where is the WW2 history of the Army and its organisation? 220.238.43.188 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits

• USAREUR traces its roots back to the establishment of ETOUSA. These are two names for the same organization. USAREUR was activated in 1942.
  • I've reverted this. We have a separate page for European Theater of Operations United States Army, and the date there is 1942, and the date here, is laid out in your own edits, is 1952.
    • USAREUR celebrates June 8 as it's birthday. Just because it was called something else before doesn't make it a different entity. USAREUER traces it's roots to the formation of ETOUSA as I laid out with the numerous references which you reverted.
      • This article, and page title, is 'United States Army Europe.' This means it appears in categories such as Category:Military units and formations by year of establishment as USAREUR. The date the organisation became USAREUR is the only possible one we should include. We have a separate page for ETOUSA, and 1942 is the right date for that page - as I added years ago. There is no possible way we should have this page giving a date which is inaccurate for the organisation which the page title refers to!
• 21st Century: 1st ID and 1st AD left germany years ago. TF-E is no longer a USAREUR controlled task force. It is now Black Sea Rotational Force, a U.S.Marine training rotation run by EUCOM.
  • This is not a rolling news report, this is about the entire history of USAREUR. Do not remove sourced information that fills in the history of this command.
    • I included and cited historical facts covering this. What I removed, was speculation on these issues from years ago. I think readers would appreciate if we stuck to what actually happened instead of relying on outdated Stars and Stripes articles written in anticipation of these events.
      • I think we've sorted this out.
• Undid revision 487062433 by Neovu79 (talk) 7th Army was dropped from the USAREUR title years ago. 7th Army is now '7th Army Joint Multinational Training Command,' a seperate and subordinate unit)
  • This is completely inaccurate. As our page Joint Multinational Command Training Center shows, 7th Army Training Command (aka 7th ATC) was established 1 July 1976. As of January, 2006 the 7th ATC became known as the 7th Army Joint Multinational Training Command.
    • This is very much accurate. Please refer to "The Official Homepage of the 7th U.S. Army Joint Multinational Training Command" http://www.hqjmtc.army.mil/ There is no "Joint Multinational Command Training Center" despite the wikipedia page of that title. It's likely that someone confused the Joint Multinational Readiness Center" (JMRC http://www.jmrc.hqjmtc.army.mil/)and the "Joint Multinational Training Command" and lumped them into one entry. Suffice it to say, as I stated previously, 7th Army no longer belongs in the USAREUR title as it is a seperate and subordinate organization.
      • No, you are wrong. 7 ATC, now 7A JMTC, was a subordinate command of USAREUR/7A, at the level of roughly brigade. There have been many reversals and reorganisations as to whether USAREUR had also the title 7A, but they remained at a four-star general's command, at Campbell Barracks. This is completely and utterly separate from the one-star's JMTC command at Grafenwohr (whether named 7 ATC beginning in 1976 or it's changing names since).
• US Army Europe was not active during World War I or World War II; we have pages for American Expeditionary Force, SHAEF, and ETOUSA for these formations.
  • This is really semantics. USAREUR was ETOUSA and therefor did play a role in WWII. When people are searching for information on the U.S. Army in Europe though, I think they'd like to have more information available about the U.S. Army's presence in Europe (including WWI) than just the history of the command itself. I don't think it's misleading or confusing to say the Army was in Europe for WWI but did not establish the U.S. Army Europe command until WWII.
    • Partially it is semantics, but this page is called 'USAREUR'. Wikipedia has separate pages on ETOUSA and SHAEF. Those pages are the proper place to put information on those organisations. Only information on USAREUR should be here. Otherwise it crowds out info on USAREUR which could be added here and confuses the separate organisations. I have no objection to a short paragraph saying that the U.S. Army in Europe has run commands called ETOUSA, USFET, and EUCOM, and linking to all those articles, but no information before 1952 should be in this page - that's what all the other articles are for. Just because the official site actually gives a brief history of the U.S. Army in Europe since 1917, rather than focusing on the history of USAREUR itself, does not mean that we on wikipedia need to be similarly sloppy about our terms and definitions.
• The images illustrate the USAREUR mission and add to the reader's understanding of the subject IAW WP:Galleries
  • In accordance with WP:Galleries, these things belong on Commons. Do not reinsert them. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Those images help illustrate the USAREUR mission and add to the reader's understanding of the subject in accordance with WP:Galleries. When people think of the Army in Europe generically, I'm sure images of the Battle of the Bulge and the Cold War come to mind. Those images demonstrate that the USAREUR presence in Europe goes far beyond that and shows the some of the important things the command is still doing today. WP:Galleries says images should help explain a topic and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. I believe these images go along with the current mission statement to do that.
      • There is no problem with adding single pictures, associated with text, next to text. But indiscriminate galleries should be on Commons. Carefully consider where you want the images, what they relate to, and insert them in-text.

• Jessegranger is a new editor. Perhaps you could convey a few of your points more softly ("Do not remove ... This is completely inaccurate ... Do not ..."). New editors just need to be inducted into these complex processes; it takes a while to learn. Tony (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I am new and still learning, however it's very discouraging when someone wipes away an entire day's work. It's obvious we both have a passion for the same subject. I'd like to work together on publishing an informative and accurate entry for this. I think that would work better than arguing and reverting back and forth. Jessegranger (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Well trying being accurate, instead of saying that USAREUR - the subject of this page - dates from 1942 instead of 1952, or 7A at Campbell with a four-star somehow transmogrified into a one-star's command at Grafenwohr, or that a faddish brand image for the entire army with 'Europe' on the bottom replaces SSIs or DUIs that the Army's heraldry experts agree upon!!, or remove sourced, referenced information that expands on the history, without replacement !! Buckshot06 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• • • Sure. What the community doesn't like is a run of reverts. So it's now necessary that the article stay in one form or the other while it's discussed here. Could you set out why you think Buckshot feels differently from you on one or more of the points? This is the usual process when there's editorial tension. I look forward to seeing some kind of resolution. Tony (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

7th Army Removed in '06

• Ok. I've checked with the USAREUR historian (Andrew N. Morris, Ph.D. USAREUR Historian, andrew.n.morris2.civ@mail.mil ) on this. We're both right. He says 7th Army was dropped from the USAREUR title, effective in this DA memo http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go0618.pdf He says

"We became only USAREUR because of GO: 18. GO 18 does not explicitly use the verbiage that "'Seventh Army' has been removed" from our designation. However, it does reinforce HQDA Memo dtd. 1 Aug 52 and supersedes HQDA Msg NR DA796059 dtd. 9 Jan 67, the latter of which combined the USAREUR and Seventh Army staffs to become US Army Europe/Seventh Army. Further, Army Campaign Plan DP 58 (circa 2006) decisions stated that, upon modular conversion, our official designation as ASCC to USEUCOM is "United States Army Europe"; abbreviated "USAREUR"; and perpetuating the lineage and honors of the Seventh Army and authorized the display and wear of appropriate Seventh Army heraldic items as specified by IoH and CMH." He could not provide a copy of The Army Campaign Plan from 2006, nor have I been able to find a version of it online, however, this DA memo http://www.tradoc.army.mil/g357/cp32/forms/DP_58_EXSUM.pdf which cites ACP Decision Point 58 (the part that redesignated USAREUR/7A as USAREUR) spells out the changes that were made in DP 58 and points back to Army Regulation 10-87 http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar10-87.pdf which lists the newly realigned army headquarters, to include U.S. Army Europe, without the 7A. I apologize for my claim that the 7A was shifted down to JMTC, however as of 2006, the 7A was dropped from the USAREUR title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessegranger (talk • contribs) 10:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesse, thanks for doing this research and sorting this out. I should note however that you don't need to double up the references in the infobox.

Given that the history and lineage of the Seventh Army is explicitly retained by the references you have found, and that this is the page where the Seventh Army's history has been located up to now (check where Seventh Army (United States) redirects to) I think we should readd the now-removed material about the 'born at sea, tested in battle' Second World War history of the Seventh Army to this page - without changing the title at the top of the page.

In addition, in the intro to make a bit of this clearer I will state that USAREUR and Seventh Army were merged in 1967 and then that USAREUR lost the 'and Seventh Army' title in 2006. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think those details might fit better in the history section? I would think the combining of U'R and 7A in the 60's would go better in the Post Cold War section of the history and the change in 2006 in the 21st Century portion. Jessegranger (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put it in the opening was it was about the name of the page. This page I believe started out as Seventh Army, is the place where the Seventh Army history was, and retains the lineage and honours. Many wikipedia pages have as their first subsection an explanation of the differing names given to the subject. Thus it needs to go at the start, but it's too small for an independent section at the moment. When there is a full intro written for this article, probably three or four meaty paragraphs given this article's size, it will become part of that with rewrites. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong date for merger 7th Army & USAREUR

Having been stationed at Hq 7th Army in the 60's I can say that the date of 1961 for the merger of 7th Army & USAREUR is all wrong.

Hq 7th Army was still a separate command until 1967. I left Stuttgart - Vaihingen (Patch Barracks) just prior to Thanksgiving 1966 enroute to VN. The HQ consolidation took place in the spring of 1967.

There were still people around USAREUR HQ in Heidelberg in 1982 who were still wearing Seventh Army patches. It was somehow separate for certain functional areas, but I don't remember the details after all this time. I think that they were TDY there from Rose Barracks up near Grafenwhoer (Vilseck). The training school up there was still called the 7th ACATC -- the Seventh Army Combined Arms Training Center -- and they were training M60A1 tank crews on the M1A1 Abrams. 75.200.43.27 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the Loop?

Why do the U.S. Seventh Army and U.S. Army Europe articles loop back and forth to each other? If they're separate commands they should have separate articles.

They're not separate commands, and haven't been for decades, as the article explains. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalizations and style

First of all, English isn't German. Capitalizing "Soldier" may be what the Army does now, but it is not standard English usage in the U.S., or anywhere else of which I am aware. It should NOT be done in this or any other Wikipedia article. "Soldier" is a common descriptive noun, not a name nor a title. It describes an occupation, or a certain human filling a certain role, much as "rooster" describes a male chicken and isn't capitalized unless it opens a sentence, anymore than is "ironworker", "engineer", or "schoolteacher".

That having been said, wouldn't it be good to use military-style dates throughout the article, e.g., "8 June 1952"? This is standard usage in most of the world outside the U.S. in any event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.200.43.27 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't use military dates, except in quotes; see WP:MOSDATE. As a US-related article, we use US style dates. As to the use of Solidier, that should be discussed at WP:MOS. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is also not standard practice to capitalize "not" in the middle of a sentence, Mr English Teacher. 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)