Talk:29th Infantry Division (United States)

I Don't Understand The Deletion of "Three Divisions"

On March 27, 2009, I added the well known epitaph for the Second World War casualties of the 29th Infantry that they were "three divisions: one in the field, one in the hospital, and one in the cemetery." This was said of 29th Division Commander Major General Charles H. Gerhardt both during his command and after it. If you grew up in Virginia (as I did) during the 1960's and 1970's you would have seen all the monuments in every little town listing all the war dead. That didn't include the dead and wounded from Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, etc.

The 29th's history is of course worthy. And FACTUALLY they were a division with among the highest casualty rates in the Second World War, and their commanding officer (a fine football player) was arguably held to account for it.

Major General Charles Hunter Gerhardt (later Colonel Gerhardt and finally Brigadier General Gerhardt)'s web page at the Arlington National Cemetery website cites the "Three Division" description:

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/chgerhardt.htm

I am not trying to denigrate the 29th; far from it. Instead, I think that this casualty rate is in their honor, After all, they did it, not us.

I can not understand why a Wikipedia page for such a distinguished unit would be whitewashed into a postcard. It is a disgrace in my opinion. I'll post this on the discussion page first. Respond as you like. But one week from now I'm restoring the "Three Divisions" aspect of the 29th's history.

I have searched this page (and others) to see if I am in error and I can find nothing. If I am in error, I will be the first to apologize and I will apologize to all.

I hope we can place the 29th in their rightful place on the interwebs.

-JM

////Salute from a Navy man. From Virginia.

JamesMadison (talk)JamesMadison —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

My concern when improving the page was primarily that I could not find a source for the detail. You are welcome to add the note back as long as it has a source. I've been in the process of systematically improving the entire article into a Good Article, and I was just trying to make sure that everything on the page had a citation, especially quotes like this, per WP:QUOTE. As long as it has a citation, it is just fine with being put back in the article. —Ed!^(talk) 14:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The "three divisions" sentence most certainly had an in-line citation in March 2009. While I agree with and applaud your efforts to achieve "good article" status for this entry on the 29th, I must tell you that your writing skills are somewhat lacking. You have taken what was once a fine article on an infantry division with a compelling storyline and turned that article into a memo. I now notice that every single sentence has an inline citation. Read any noted history book and see if there is a citation following every sentence. I did not write the original article on the 29th (I merely added one sentence) but you have apparently destroyed the work of several contributors who had put together what I considered to be a very fine, very readable article. JamesMadison (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you feel that way. However, my writing has improved the article by far from its original form, and you will find that Wikipedia policy will agree. In comparing the article to this revision before I ever touched it, the older version is vastly inferior to the article in its current state. It was full of speculation, unsourced information, and blatant unencyclopedic nonsense. What few citations there are (such as the one you mentioned) are in incorrect form, per WP:CITE. Please consult WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a place for amusing stories and opinions; it is designed for neutral, factual, and verifiable information. The fact that this article is now rated a GA (an honor bestowed on less than 10,000 of Wikipedia's 3 million articles, see WP:GA) where it was previously a Start-class mess is a testament to this. All information on the article has a source, per WP:SOURCE. In its previous state, the article contained long narratives filled with jargain and opinions interspersed with lists which killed its readability. Because of all of this, the article was neither quality nor readable, as it is now. This article has not been destroyed, it has been built. —Ed!^(talk) 03:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A fair response. I hope I do not come off as strident (or an ass*ole), neither of which is my intention. I just believe in the narrative in history, which I feel was lost in this article. The article should tell a story, and a compelling story at that. If you want to build this story, I'll help you, and you can help me. And I do apologize for that crack about your writing skills, although I still feel this article is a memo.JamesMadison (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit, this article could do with a fair bit of expanding in terms or what the division did during it's history; although each article is of course a WP:Summary it seems like this is too much of one. What I'd look for is something akin to 11th Airborne Division, which I've got up to A-Class, and will hopefully get to FA once I sort out some of the post-war organizational stuff. Skinny87 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as always the article is far from done. Anything you can add to it is helpful. —Ed!^(talk) 01:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

German 352nd Infantry Division

This statement is a crock of hooey--> "Rommel had also raised an entire new division of troops to oppose the landings, the 352nd Infantry Division. Founded around a core of hardened combat veterans from the Russian Front, it was rated by the German high command as a crack division."

Rommel had nothing to do with the raising of this division, or any division, for that matter. OKH and the Home Army raised new divisions and supplied replacement manpower. Combat generals such as Rommel were not involved with this.

While the 352nd did have men who had fought on the Eastern Front, the majority of the men were teenagers, 17 & 18 years old. Of the 333 officers assigned, fully 50% were without any combat experience and the division was short about 30% of the needed NCOs. 1455 of division were Russian "volunteers". There had never been any battalion or regimental training. Of the 12,021 men of division, only 6800 were combat troops, detailed to defend a 53km front. The 352nd was not considered to be a crack division by anyone's imagination.

I suggest that the hogwash statement in the article to be amended as this: The newly raised German 352nd Infantry Division was responsible for the defense of a large swathe of the Normandy coastline, including part of the area of Omaha Beach where the US 29th Infantry Division landed on 6 June 1944. JW (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The statement was based on information given in Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Infantry Division in Normandy.

I would ask the source of your information--none of which contradicts the German High Command's own assessment of the 352nd.

Georgejdorner (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm going to change the sentence.

JW (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Corlett and Cota

These two paragraphs are so out of touch with reality that they need to be completely canned.

First, Corlett wasn't involved in the amphibious landings; his was a follow-up corps headquarters. He didn't even arrive in the ETO until well less than 2 months before D-Day; by that time, the "bright idea fairly" was properly shot and buried. More to the point, however, Corlett would have understood several key points which Eisenhower understood and the author of this article does not: 1) LVTs were in short supply and not available for Normandy; 2) The vast majority of LVTs were unarmored and would have been worse sitting ducks than the LCVPs & LC(A)s. Even the LVT2A(rmored) version had but 0.25 inch armor over most of it (at the cost of reduced troop capacity - 50% that of an LCVP) which would have been wholly insufficient on Omaha Beach once it climbed out of the water; 3) they were slower, meaning more exposure on the run in and higher losses; 4) there is no reason to believe LVTs could have made it through the shingle on Omaha - the Shermans certanly could not; 5) even if they could have negotiated the shingle, the unarmored LVTs would have been extremely vulnerable to mines on the invasion beaches - a threat not often seen in the Pacific; 6) LVTs could not be carried on davits as could LCVPs and LC(A)s. This would have required LPDs or the deck/cargo space on LSTs to transport them - as they did in the Pacific (the author of this article needs to do basic reading about the cross-shipping maneuvers used in the Pacific); 7) No LPDs were available for Normandy and there were no excess/reserve LCTs; 8) The diversion of LSTs to carry LVTs would have reduced the troops available the first day and set back follow-on landing schedules; 9) subsequent waves would still have required LVCPs/LC(A)s. This paragraph was clearly written by someone with no knowledge of LVTs or amphibious assault conditions.

As for Cota, this is an insultingly ignorant treatment of a complex subject that took months of staff work and discussion to decide. The Mediterranean assaults had been night assaults, but the planners rightly realized that the Atlantic and the Atlantic Wall were much different animals. Nothing in the actual landings indicate that a night landing would have fared better. Given how badly the landings were muddled on the run into the beaches in daylight, can you imagine how much worse they would have been in the dark? And then to be met at dawn with the full fury of the un-suppressed German coastal artillery?

These silly speculative attributions have no place in a serious discussion of the Normandy landings. 67.181.72.42 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The "silly speculative" attributions were garnered from a history of the 29th Division entitled Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Division in Normandy. The author took part in amphibious landings while in the U. S. Marine Corps. He also knew some of the 29th Division veterans who landed at Normandy that day.

In turn, the author would inquire, How many amphibious landings have you been through? And what is the source of your 9 points of objection? Georgejdorner (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree completely.

JW (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Demobilized for 20 years?

Decentralized for 20 years between wars, maybe, but I found and included info on all constituent units for this period. So why was this deleted?

Georgejdorner (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I probably removed that unintentionally; I've completely rewritten the article using ONLY details I can source. This is because I am pushing to increase its quality. I may have deleted this information because I couldn't find a source for it. If you can source it, please re-add it and forgive my cautition. —Ed!^(talk) 01:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:29th Infantry Division (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few spots that need explication

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

• Images -
  • File:Ruban de la croix de guerre 1939-1945.PNG lacks source information. Is this a public domain image/etc? I won't hold back GA status on this one concern, but if you're heading towards FAC, this image could be a problem there.
    • I'm not looking to make the article a FA quite yet, but when I do I will look into that image's copyright, it appears in many of my other A-class articles. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• General -
  • I note the couple of sentences at the end that need citations, but they aren't wildly contentious nor are they on information so crucial to the article that if they were removed it'd suffer. If you're planning on FAC though, you need those fixed.
  • The prose is servicable, but strongly suggest an outside copyedit or two before attempting FAC.
  • Might also benefit by a bit more context before going on to FAC, as the historical events surrounding the narrative here are not explained at all, merely linked. Fuller context would be expected at FAC most probably.
    • Agreed with all points, but at the time I don't have time to promote the article any further than GA. I will request a copy edit and the details of the peer review when the time comes. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Lead -
  • Explain what KFOR is, yes, you've linked it but abbreviations should be expanded the first time they are used in an article.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• History -
  • "The division was comprised of the 57th Infantry Brigade from New Jersey (115th and 116th Infantry Regiments),..." i presume that the information in the ()'s means that it was made up of those two regiments? Keep in mind that not everyone reading the article would know that. Perhaps "The division was comprised of the 57th Infantry Brigade from New Jersey - comosed of the 115th and 116th Infantry Regiments,..." might work better. At the least you need to make the connection explicit. Same for the rest of the sentence.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• World War I -
  • I know the military uses casulties differently than civilians do. In this article do you mean the military definition (both killed and wounded) or civilian definition (killed only)? Better to make that explicit at the beginning.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I know you dont mean this but this phrase "... 170 officers and 5,691 men.." strongly implies that the officers aren't men. Is there a missing "enlisted" in front of "men"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• World War II -
  • "At the outbreak of World War II, the United States Army began buildup and reorganization." Buildup and regoranzation of what? Please specify.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Operation Overlord -
  • "The final cross-channel invasion came on June 6, 1944, Operation Overlord, the invasion of Normandy." this sentence is jarring as there have been no mentions of any other cross-channel invasions. Perhaps "The invasion of France came on June 6, 1944 with the launching of Operation Overlord on the Normandy beaches." or something similar.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "The regiment was assigned four sectors of the beach... " I assume you mean the 116th? Suggest you make this explicit, as the last regiment mentioned was the 16th, thus just referring to "regiment" is unclear.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Same for "Soldiers of the division boarded a large number of attack... " as the last division mentioned was the 1st.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Present day -
  • SFOR? Please explain this abbreviation, not just link it.
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
• Organization - shouldn't this be "Current organization"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to all of your concerns. Thank you for your thorough review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the article since the previous GA review have further improved the article. So I think it would be appropriate to give it GA on WikiProject Maryland also.Folklore1 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

References

The references section had become inconsistent in citation styles. I have no preferences for any particular style, but just chose one for consistency's sake. Ocalafla (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured in episodes of Star Trek: Voyager

In episodes 18 and 19 of season 4, hunts simulated by an alien species on the Holodecks of the USS Voyager included a scenario based on the events in France during WWII. "The Americans" that arrived to liberate the simulated town were the 29th Infantry Division.

I discovered this only by googling the blue and grey yin yang emblem they wore on their shoulders, and found it interesting that the real 29th spent time "conducting simulated attacks against fortified positions.", just as Commander Chakotay and his men did on Voyager.

I think this trivial tidbit is worthy of mention, perhaps in the "Legacy" section. What do my fellow Wikipedians think? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Assuming of course reliable refs can be found... Fred Gandt · talk · contribs

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 29th Infantry Division (United States). 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/20100704025451/http://www.arguard.org/docs/unit_structure.pdf to http://www.arguard.org/docs/unit_structure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420162049/http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-a-f.html to http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-a-f.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504135301/http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-t-z.html to http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/wwII-t-z.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 29th Infantry Division (United States). 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/20111112094030/http://www.ausa.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/ILW%20Web-ExclusivePubs/Torchbearer/TBearComp1v12.pdf to http://www.ausa.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/ILW%20Web-ExclusivePubs/Torchbearer/TBearComp1v12.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)