Jump to content

Talk:Distinctive unit insignia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This article is misleading in that not every unit-related heraldic item on the US Army uniform is a DUI. Many of the items on this page are actually Regimental Distinctive Insignia. DUIs are essentially for every unit that isn't a regiment, i.e. an MP or signal battalion, HHC for a division, or TRADOC school elements. An RDI specifically refers to either regimental insignia, for example the 14th Cavalry Regiment or the 3rd Infantry Regiment, and the RDI also refers to whole-corps regiments, i.e. the MI Corps or the Chemical Corps. The article makes it seem that RDIs are DUIs which isn't the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.22.236 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are splitting hairs, almost all of these insignia were authorized as DUIs decades before the Army created the U.S. Army Regimental System in 1981. They are still DUIs, however when worn centered 1⁄8 inch above the top of the pocket flap, or 1⁄4 inch above any unit awards or foreign badges that are worn they are considered RDIs. (AR 670-1). Ehrentitle (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this was addressed a while ago, but I believe it would be worth explaining the correlation between DUI and RDI in this article. Essentially, for combat arms regiments under USARS, the RDI is the DUI. As Ehrentitle mentioned the only visible difference is concerning the placement on the uniform; however, in this case the DUI refers to unit of assignment whereas the RDI refers to regimental affiliation. To point, an infantryman assigned to the 23d Infantry (DUI) can be affiliated with the 17th Infantry (RDI). The counterpoint is that the RDI for whole corps regiments is not a DUI. If there are no objections I believe it should be added in. I will do the adding as well if the original author has no issues. Thanks.Kintrix (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

101st Airborne

[edit]

I can't work out where this goes, so I'm just gonna leave this here: File:101AirborneDivDUI.jpg

Wear

[edit]

"On the beret flash of enlisted personnel" Is this still accurate? I have seen in other sources that the DUI is no longer authorized for wear on the beret. ?? Venqax (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples section -- DUI not available links

[edit]

Many of the links for DUIs come within WP:ELNO #13. Would Global Security.org be allowed in the EL section? The GS links to individual units happen to display DUIs for the units, but simply putting the name of a unit in the 'Examples' section with a link to GS is poor presentation. The http://www.militarymuseum.org/ link goes to the California Military Museum, and would be better placed in EL section. Everyone who served with pride in their unit would love to see their unit's DUI in the gallery, but if they do they should load up proper images. Even so, the Examples section might become an endless listing of images. At present, even without actual images, this section is WP:NOTGALLERY.--S. Rich (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries removed

[edit]

Now that the galleries have been removed, perhaps there should be a link to a WikiCommons Gallery with all the images that use to exist on this page?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder Marks vs. Shoulder Loops

[edit]

Since my correction was reverted by RightCowLeftCoast, I will address it here. The article refers to wearing the DUI on shoulder marks; the DUI is not worn on shoulder marks, it is worn on the jacket "shoulder loops" for enlisted and officer (O-6 and below) on the Class A Army Green Uniform, and for enlisted personnel when wearing the Class A Army Service Uniform. I erroneously stated they were worn on the epaulette. If there are no objections here, I will make the correction again and cite AR 670-1. Kintrix (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, and the inclusion of source, perhaps a url link for the source would be useful to readers. Also thanks for serving.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no Class A Army Green Uniform anymore, that reference can probably be eliminated.Venqax (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is "shoulder loops" the official terminology the Army uses, as opposed to "shoulder straps"? If not, it should be changed. They are, sartorially speaking, not loops, but straps.Venqax (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This and that

[edit]
  • "Unit designations, numerals, letters, geographical outlines, reproductions of other insignia will not be included as part of the design." Many insignia include symbols reflecting the numerical designation. I noted this in passing to day regarding an artillery regiment where the roundels were the number of the regiment. I can't remember the unit, but it was in McKenney, Janice E. (2010). Field Artillery (PDF). Army Lineage Series (Second ed.). Washington D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History. CMH Pub 60-11.. The 55th Maintenance Battalion is another example where the original design includes micrometers resembling "55".
  • "Once a distinctive unit insignia is approved it is changed only when a heraldic or historical error is found." When the 55th Maintenance Battalion was reactivated in 1982 a new DUI was designed, reflecting support of the Pershing missile. TIOH still has the old DUI on record for some reason.
  • McKenney is a good source for insignia in vector form.
  • Raines, Rebecca Robbins (2005). Signal Corps (PDF). Army Lineage Series. Washington D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History. CMH Pub 60-15. is another good source for vector.
  • Others in the lineage series may have vector images.[1] Not the ADA document though.

--21lima (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Distinctive unit insignia. 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:

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) 11:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Branch Titles

[edit]

user:Ocalafla- can we discuss the section titles? The units are Battlefield Surveillance Brigades, they conduct battlefield surveillance missions, same with Air Defense Artillery, Information Operations etc... Can we discuss this instead of executing an edit war? Mikeofv (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out! After your first reversion, the changes I then made left intact initial capitals where the type of unit was the same as the name of a US Army branch, e.g. "Field Artillery". The Field Artillery Branch is a proper noun while "field artillery" outside the context of the branch is a common noun, just a generic type of unit. I think the way it was previously (sentence case) was more correct because the article was listing general field artillery units as opposed to the Field Artillery Branch. While I thought my approach was more correct, I see arguments both ways and left those edits intact as an attempt at compromise.
However, with regard to "battlefield surveillance brigade" there is no entity for which that is a proper noun, i.e., there is no "battlefield surveillance branch" or "information operation branch"; it is just a kind of unit. It is, thus, a common noun just like "airborne brigade","rifle company ","heavy brigade" etc. The unit is a "airborne brigade" that conducts airborne missions. So, too, with battlefield surveillance. Of course, if we are talking about the "93rd Airborne Brigade" or the "93rd Battlefield Surveillance Brigade" we've got proper nouns and initial capitalization is proper. Hope this helps. Ocalafla (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Distinctive_unit_insignia&oldid=1201560960"