Talk:United States Army/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about United States Army. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"As the largest and most senior branch of the U.S. military,..."

"As the largest and most senior branch of the U.S. military,..." There is no citation to support the claim that the Army is senior to the other branches, thus I have removed this. This now reads "As the largest and oldest branch of the U.S. military,...: If someone is able to properly cite this then feel free to revert my edit. Simmons123456 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference citation added and edit reverted.CobraDragoon (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose changing the main image from DA Seal to Army Symbol

After seeing that the United States Navy page changed its main image from the DON seal to the emblem of the U.S. Navy I thought it might be a good idea to do that here as well (and also on the USAF page). My reasoning is a) the DA Seal belongs to the Department of the Army, not the United States Army, and while they are similar they are still different. and b) that the Army logo is more representative of the Army and often used instead of the DA Seal on official Army pages (https://www.army.mil/) and is more recognizable. It is also used as the SSI for the CSA, SMA, and others in the Army Headquarters (http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=5226&CategoryId=2986&grp=2&menu=Uniformed%20Services) For further reading: http://1000logos.net/u-s-army-logo/Garuda28 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the eagle on the bandsman's cap

Maybe this is retro, but I would prefer the eagle with the breastplate with the claw holding the arrows. It was on the uniforms and caps. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: the eagle isn't an Army symbol, the gold cap device is used on all service caps. The Air Force uses the same one in silver. It's just the great seal of the U.S. Garuda28 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Dept. of Army emblems and symbols seem more a fit for United States Department of the Army instead of here. --Finlayson (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth moving to the additional symbols given it's association, but definitally not the primary image since the Army logo is more specific.Garuda28 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

President vs. Commander-in-Cheif

Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief Garuda28 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 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:

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) 06:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Tents

This section doesn’t seem like it’s that important to be listed on this article. Unless anyone has any issues, I’d like to kill it.Garuda28 (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, "Tents" is a sub-section of the "Equipment" section, along with other subsections such as "Weapons", "Uniforms", "Vehicles", etc.... and even "3D Printing" (what a modern age we live in...). The tent info in supported by linked articles and attached refs, so I don't see any need to "kill it". This is indeed some of the equipment that the army in fact uses.

On another note, I'm wondering if this section was brought to your attention because of a very recent edit I made removing a comment about "saluting the Tomb of the Unknowns in all kinds of weather". That comment was certainly out of place and that's why I removed it. I did look through the article for a more appropriate place to move the content to, but couldn't find any. There is no information about the Tomb, or Arlington Nat'l Cemetery to be found. If you or anyone else would like to add some kind of mention of these places, the comment, with it's attached ref, that I removed can be found in the page history. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 03:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It actually was brought to my attention because of your edit. My thought process is that it might be more suitable for the equipment of the U.S. Army page, rather than the main one, since it doesn't list systems in the same manner or importance as aircraft, berets, or land vehicles might. Sorry if I came off as overzealous. Garuda28 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

LOL! Why would anyone think of someone wanting to "kill" a section of content as "overzealous"? It never entered my mind ;-) Anyway, I do see your point, but I don't see a need for removal. But that's just me though, you may find others agree with you. Give it some more time. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 04:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ground forces redirect

@Garuda28: 'Ground forces' redirects to Army; 'land warfare' is only one aspect of the armed forces, since the US Army operates on land, the littorals of the seas (some soldiers even operate seacraft), in the air, in space, and in cyber. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So a number of points on that:

From a sake of consistency all the other armed forces preface off with their primary domains, so for the sake of consistency that has to be considered.

The Air Force also has the exact same, operating on land, having maritime assets, but the primary domains are air and space. Same with the navy, with some sailors operating on land, air, space, but their primary domain is the maritime, just as the Army's primary domain is the land.

According to 10 U.S. Code § 3062 - Policy; composition; organized peace establishment "[the Army] shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations on land. It is responsible for the preparation of land forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war..."

The DOD also categorizes its services by primary domain, categorizing the Army as "Primary Land Power branch of the U.S. Armed Forces". Furthermore, a number of outside sources categorize the Army as a primarily land force, as its primary domain, not an air or maritime force. Labeling it as a land warfare force is not ignoring the other domains it operates in (as labeling the Navy as the maritime warfare force or the Air force as an air and space forces does not degrade their other domains), but rather recognizes its primary and title 10 domain.(http://open.defense.gov/Transparency/FOIA/Find-An-Office/)Garuda28 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) The U.S. Army primarily does land-based or ground warfare. That's all the first sentence is saying. Doing support and secondary roles do not change the primary role. Whichever term and link best states ground (or land) warfare as its primary role should be fine. Note I am replying to original post here. -Finlayson (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: "ground forces" redirects to "Army", which is already noted and linked at the top of the infobox, whereas "land warfare" redirects to a different article, "ground warfare". So instead linking twice to the same article at the very top of the page, obviously it's more beneficial to link to a second article, providing the reader with more info. Please check the pages you link to when editing and keep WP:OVERLINKING in mind. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So this sums up to replacing the redirect of land warfare to a direct link to 'ground warfare'. OK with everyone? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t see any consensus for land warfare vs. ground warfare. If you want you can start another segment on it, but it seems the official and preferred term (in U.S. doctrine) is land warfare. Garuda28 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Updating the infobox

Hello, I am proposing the following changes to the infobox, per my edit diff, which is found here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This also affects other military branch articles, infoboxes and official colors. I had suggested centralizing the discussion at MILHIST, but it seems the discussion is going at the Talk:United States Navy page, so people might as well check in there. - ^theWOLFchild 06:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

3-D Printing bogus claims

The claims in the single sentence are NOT supported by the article cited. The BBC article claims that the 3-D printer was purchased (for ~$700) as a way to speed lab/shop repair of R&D equipment. It is no more noteworthy than the use of paper. Should we have a section on the use of steno pads as part of Army equipment?? Or glue? Or a million other common everyday items? Should either find an actual non-civilian use (for instance making bullets or bayonets), or remove the silly claim, which I suspect is simple vandalism.174.131.63.233 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's quite silly to have something like this on an overview of the US Army. It's quite out of place for an article at this level.--McChizzle (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is a citation (see p.14) for the scale of funding of the Army's space and satellite operations,FY 2018, which have got to be much smaller than the Air Force expenditures. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused, I don't see how that's a counter-argument in favor of keeping the 3D printing section in the article; if anything it supports its removal. Please explain. --McChizzle (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The news releases are from small operations in the Army supply chain. The writers are sincere, but they describe pieces only. The large-scale budget operations are not more important than the parts of the chain that affect future operations and forward thinking. When we get small contributions, we ought to place them in appropriate locations in the encyclopedia, rather than marginalize them or label them with divisive terms. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This 3D printing statement is listed under the equipment section of this article, which has its own page with a more detailed listing of equipment and gear. If 3D printing has become so significant to the Army that it deserves ranking in importance alongside the grenade, for example, then it should go there vise an overview article on the U.S. Army. If not, then this article needs to grow significantly to cover things like MREs, camouflage netting, and other ancillary items used acrossed the Army. --McChizzle (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I support your idea of moving the contribution to the equipment page. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about United States Army. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.