Talk:82nd Airborne Division/Archive 1

Archive 1

Baggy Pants

Is the January 1944 date in paragraph 5 correct? (RJP 15:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

I doubt it, since the phrase was acknowlged by the Germans, not the US Army. It is apocrophal at best. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of Anzio was from 23 Jan 1944 to 25 May 1944. This is where the 504th was when the diary was captured. They are known through out the Army as the "Devil's in Baggy Pants". The actual diary resides in the 82nd Airborne Division War Memorial Museum on woodmansterne road in Ft. Bragg, NC. --82nd Paratrooper 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

---

OUTDATED INFO-removed from page

"The 1st brigade of the division is now scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan in the fall of 2004." Needs to updated. WikiDon 05:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda names

Please note that articles should follow the neutral point of view. Propaganda names should be avoided when possible. Añoranza 02:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the official name.--Looper5920 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am always greatly amused whenever I see someone object to "Propaganda" when what they really mean is that they are against so-called "Black" propaganda. They really donh't object to "White" Propaganda since they really havn't a clue as to the difference between the two. In fact, I'll wager that opponents to so-called "propaganda names" aren't aware of just what "White" Propaganda is. I am sure that they assume that the form of Propaganda they recognize - "Black" Propaganda - is all there is, but that is simply not the case. Properly, propaganda is nothing more than information that furthers one side or the other in a cause. It was the Jesuits who coined the term, and they intended it to further the Christian cause. "Black" Propaganda is propaganda that stretches the truth just enough to further a lie, while "White" Propaganda tells the honest truth - as the propagator see the truth - and so furthers the cause, even when that cause is cricized by objectors. In other words, one man's propaganda is another man's information. Both can be true and factual, and therefore should not be discriminated against.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Black" propaganda...."White" propaganda.....what are you talking about?Equinox137 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd brigade of the Division took part in 2003 invasion of Iraq in early 2003.

This most recent change has caused the article to have 2003 twice in the same sentance. That is bad sentance structure. The result is you reduced the quality of the article. This doesnt not work in your favour -- slow down -- make good changes instead of lots of changes. Jayvdb 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

i was in the 82nd ,our motto was all the way.can anyone see if this is the motto or where there more than one—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.126.254 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 February 2006.

That is indeed the motto of the Division although individual units within the Division also have motto's. Such as the 504th PIR mentioned above. --82nd Paratrooper 17:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Importance rating

I rated this article as "Top" based on the the fact that the 82nd has been involved in most military operations in the last few decades, they are the US's primary rapid deployment force (usually first to go), and that the unit is known to most people in the U.S., even if they don't have a clue what the unit does. --Nobunaga24 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Current capabilities

The History section takes up nearly the entire artice - I think we need more information on current capabilities and what makes this unit unique among the current military. I will add info that I can find. Identity0 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire division is currently deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article.

Elite

The first line of the article calls them an 'elite' unit of the US Army. I'm not disputing if this is true, but it would be nice if there was some information about what makes them 'elite', whether its their selection and training process or whatever. This could be included in a training/capabilities section maybe? Ebglider91 (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics (I'm a Marine, not a soldier), but I think that Airborne recruits are held at higher physical standards and recieve more intense training than regular infantry, as they are considered a specialized light infantry.-TMC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.22.213 (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All US Army soldiers designated as infantry go through infantry One-Station Unit Training at Fort Benning, GA instead of a non-MOS specific nine week basic training program followed by MOS-specific Advanced Individual Training. Soldiers at infantry school are not held to different standards based on future assignments, be it to an airborne unit, light unit, mech unit, or otherwise. In fact, infantry recruits are held to the Army minimums for PT and rifle qualifications.

Airborne school, at least when I went, had one slightly different physical qualification, and that was the ability to hold yourself up over a chin-up bar for ten seconds. Airborne school is open to all MOS's and personnel that would hardly be considered "elite" so the standard is not raised there.

I would say that the training the soldiers of the 82nd receive (at least the infantry) as well as the mission being centered around rapid deployment would be what set them apart as "elite". You could also point to the requirement that all soldiers assigned to the division be airborne qualified as proof of "eliteness". However, it would be extremely hard to quantify the "eliteness" of the 82nd, especially because there is no specific selection program with standards above that of the regular Army like there is for Ranger batallion or Special Forces [for example, XX% of soldiers fail to meet the standard] other than Airborne School itself. Also, what would qualify as better or worse training, evaluated by whom? It seems that the 82nd is considered elite more by the tradition based on past performances, especially those of WWII, and while as a former paratrooper I am biased into thinking that, of course, they are elite, it may not be the right choice of words to use here. GRLant1 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On decorations

The ministerial award, here shown in silver

The Military Order of William, when awarded to units, is not specified as "IVth Class" or "First Class". All decorated units simply tie the knights cross to their regimental banner. The date "1940" after the Belgian fouragere suggests that it was awarded in 1940. That can't be true. The USA were neutral in that year.

Source: Moed en Deugd door J. van Zelm van Eldik, 2003

On the Dutch Wiki, [1], the brave sergant Alex van Aalten late of the 82nd Airborne 1-508 PIR (Parachute Infantry Regiment) Delta Company at Fort Bragg, North Carolina has been memorized. He received a ministerial award in gold for his part in retrieving the body of a Dutch soldier killed in action.
He certainly was a fine young man and a brave soldier in the best tradition of his regiment.
Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC), The Netherlands.

WWI 82nd Division Shoulder Sleeve Insignia

That is not a WW 1 insignia, it is a modern insignia without the airborne tab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.179.13 (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just checked you on that. I have a strong feeling from prior recollection that you may be correct and that the article is incorrect. The problem is that the dead-tree books I used to have to prove your assertion have all gone MIA. Maybe someone could go to a library and look it up? Historical accuracy should be a priority for the article, I hope. If it is correct in the article, I'd love a cited reference.

Woah. I just checked the source on the image. The uploader admits the source, and the current page on which it is displayed I found at http://www.militaryoutlet.com/military-insignia.aspx?CategoryID=6. This is very far out of my understanding of WP:FUR. The image was taken from a commercial retailer and then claimed to be property of the federal government under copyright law. The page that links the image states, "All Rights Reserved © 2006 Military Outlet." I don't see how it could stand any FUR test. Further, the data on the image proves it's a current patch, not the WWI 82d ID patch, and the article may be misrepresenting both the source and the historical claim. I propose nominating the image for Non-free review. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: The above link doesn't change as you change pages, as I thought it did. The image in question is shown on page 2 (currently, 2009). There seems to be a direct link to the item, with the image, at 82ND Airborne Division Patch . —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(This is a copy of the message I posted in response to your question about this image on Media Copyright Questions.) The design of the badge is in the public domain as a work of the US government. According to US legal precedent, a simple photograph of a work in the public domain cannot be copyrighted; it, too, is in the public domain. This is a case of either the website asserting copyright where they have no right to do so, or, more likely, their copyright message is only meant to refer to things over which they can legally assert copyright (such as the design of the site). Either way, there's nothing wrong with this image's copyright status. -- Hux (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Consult the Unit Page at the site of The Institute of Heraldry, the US Army's organization that deals with unit insignia. It states that the division was first given an insignia in 1918, but that insignia was redesigned and the airborbe tab was added in 1942. I take this to mean that it had another insignia before its current one (as many US army divisions changed their insignias between WWI and WWII) and that insignia is just not well known since I can't find any image of it, either. —Ed!^(talk) 06:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And thanks for expanding the WWI section. So, the Pentagon link above records that the patch was approved in October, and we know the war ended in November. Technically, what is displayed is a WWI patch: When the patch was approved in October, nobody really could have known that the war would end in November (no WP:CRYSTAL in those days either). While it leaves the reader wondering what the patch looked like prior to October (specifically, the August 1917 – October 1918 patch), the info may be a bit too trivial for the article. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

505th PIR Crest

Is there a pertinent or valid reason why the 505th PIR Crest placed on this article? I personally do not believe it conveys any message towards the 82nd as a whole or the article. Even though the unit is a brigade under the division. -Signaleer (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Names in captions

Is it really appropriate to use the names of killed soldiers in captions? It can be offensive and upsetting to family members. I suggest that we remove the names from the captions in the images on this page.JakeH07 (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, but at the same time it does not add to the article at all so I'm indifferent to it being removed. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the name until we can reach a concensus. I really think the name shouldn't appear. We really need to be on the safe-side with this issue because if it does affects someone, it could really hurt them. Also, Ed! is right, it adds nothing to the article.JakeH07 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the name should be removed with the comment that he was killed. -Signaleer (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

36th Engineer Brigade

Global Security .com shows this brigade attached tot he 82nd Division (Airborne)--121.216.193.134 (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is probably only on a temporary basis, such as while both units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. -Ed!^(talk) 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit?

The article has been flagged for a copyedit, but I can't see any comment suggesting why.

The only major issue I can see is the use of military jargon and abbreviations which is confusing to the casual reader - comments like:

Note that 2/325 did not deploy one company within. It was a COHORT company which was not "ARTEP'd". Each proceeding Bn, pushed a single company forward with A-2/504 (Led by then Cpt. Humble and 1SG Graham) deploying only one company out of the entire Bn.

for example, mean almost nothing to me. I'd suggest that someone who actually knows what that means should be the one to copyedit, but before even that, I wonder if there is potentially too much detail in the main article to start with now, and there should be a couple of sub-articles to hive off this kind of detail into... Brickie (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

82nd Airborne

There is no mention of the 82nd Airborne fighting in Korea. My husband fought in Korea and was in the 82nd Airborne Division. I hate to think he fought in vain for freedom and the truth is not told here. If anyone knows about the 82nd Airborne fighting in Korea, please post the facts regarding these heroes that parachuted into Korea. These brave men should not be forgotten as some of their lives were given so that some people could go free! Lest we forget!

Jackielach48 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My sources say that the 82nd wasn't sent to the Korean war. Perhaps he was transferred or seconded to a unit that did, or was in a different unit at that time, and later joined the 82nd. According to a quick bit of research, 187th Infantry Regiment (United States), then part of 11th Airborne Division (United States) conducted airborne operations a few times during the Korean war. According to this history of the 82nd, several members of that unit went on to the 82nd (although the unit as a whole later joined the 101st). Hope this helps. (Hohum ^@) 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The 82d definitely did not take part in the Korean War, and any accurate listing of units there (such as "Korean War Order of Battle: United States, United Nations, and Communist Ground, Naval, and Air Forces, 1950-1953" by Gordon Rottman) shows that the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team, detached from the 11th Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, KY, was the largest US Army Airborne formation in Korea. I've read that units of the 11th were very understrength and personnel from the 82d were rapidly transferred to the 187th to bring it up to strength for its deployment to Korea, but the 82d itself remained at Fort Bragg. Anyone who claims to have fought in Korea as a member of the 82d should not be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The 82nd itself never left for Korea, but a large number of reinforcements from the unit may have been transferred to the other divisions fighting in Korea. It is possible that someone may have been assigned to the 82nd just before or just after going to Korea, but not at the same time. —Ed!^(talk) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

I see that they are disbanding the 82nd Airborne Division Headquarters. Will they still be keeping the Brigades intact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see that? —Ed!^(talk) 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi influence removed

Its important to remember the tragedy that happened in 1995, but Its not relevant to the page. In no way did the 82ND or the Army as a whole, condone racism or Neo-Nasi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.spiers (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Commercialism

What is the Wikipedia policy regarding external links whose only purpose seemingly is to draw business to a commercial website, in this case www.combatreels.com? I've no doubt that the DVDs are interesting to many people, but there is no information on that site that isn't carried in the Wikipedia article itself. Seems kind of inappropriate to me. Is it?--172.190.116.12 (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

82nd in Korean war

My father was in the 82nd Airborne, and some were sent to the Korean War, attached to other regiments. I believe my father was attached to the 175th infantry. I have pictures of him in the war wearing the AA patch, so I know they were there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.61.180 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The division itself remained in the US during the war, but indeed a lot of its troops rotated into Korea as parts of other units, such as the Korean War Ranger companies and the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team. —Ed!^(talk) 14:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable Commanders-MG Lindsay, MG Stiner, MG Shelton and MG Rodriquez should be added to the list

This site does need some updating. Here are a few suggestions to start with: Notable Commanders-MG Lindsay, MG Stiner and MG Rodriquez should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.207.239.48 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a complete list of commanders at the bottom of the page. —Ed!^(talk) 10:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

18th Fires

Someone keeps adding the 18th Fires as an integral part of the 82nd Division. According to the Army Field Manual about Fire Support (FM 3-09) from 3 Nov 2011:

FIRES BRIGADES

2-2. A fires brigade’s (FIB) primary task is conducting strike operations. The FIB is the only Army field artillery organization above the brigade combat team (BCT) and can be directed to execute tasks for any joint, Service, or functional headquarters. The FIB is neither organic to any Army organization or echelon, nor is it focused on any specific region or geographic combatant commander’s area of responsibility. A division, corps, joint force land component command, joint task force (JTF) or other force may have a FIB assigned, attached or placed under operational control (OPCON); however, the FIB is normally attached to a division headquarters (HQ). When operating under the control of the joint force commander or another Service, the Army Service component command exercises administrative control over the FIB. Fires brigades are task-organized to accomplish assigned tasks. The brigade’s higher headquarters usually assigns the brigade missions in terms of target sets to engage, target priorities, or effects to achieve. The situation may also require the brigade to control joint fires assets.

Note: "The FIB is neither organic to any Army organization or echelon, nor is it focused on any specific region or geographic combatant commander’s area of responsibility." Why should the Army suddenly have changed policy/doctrine for just this one brigade? Does anyone have a source as to why FM 3-09 should have been suspended for the 18th? noclador (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So what do you propose? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I still think that no Fires Brigade is organic/integral to any division. However an IP insists it is so... Therefore I am asking if anyone has a source/reference that the 18th is now truly integral/organic to the 82nd! I can find such a source and believe that as per Field Manual, US Army doctrine, US Army history the Fires Brigades is only under oversight/administrative control of the 82nd. I don't want to get into an edit war with the IP (I wrote on his talkpage but got ignored) and as I can not find any source to back the IPs claim up, I am asking now if anyone else has a source/reference about this. noclador (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If the IP can't provide any sources, then there's nothing to debate. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP doesn't provide any source and keeps deleting the source I provided (from the official 18th Fires Brigade page) that contradicts his version. I reverted him now 3 times in the last week or so and left 2 messages on his talkpage, but he just ignores me and keeps on reverting to his version. So - even though I am tempted to revert him again - I will not do so as I do not want to edit war in any way. noclador (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sustainment Brigade

Something about the Sustainment bridage seems messed up. Why are there two HQ links? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The 2nd HQ was for the Support BN which falls directly under the Sustainment Brigade and not the Special Troops Battalion.Ryan.opel (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Airborne & Parachute Infantry Regiment designations

It is very popular to refer to the 325th as the "325th Airborne Infantry Regiment" and the 500-series regiments as the "504th / 505th / 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment," but these are designations that have not existed in many decades.

The 325th Glider Infantry Regiment lost the "Glider" part of its designation on 15 December 1947 and was redesignated as the 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment on 15 December 1948. (As the Army moved away from the use of gliders, the future of the 325th was, for a while, uncertain.) The 504th and 505th went from PIR to AIR on 15 December 1947. The 508th, inactive during this period, was reactivated on 16 April 1951 as AIR.

The era of infantry regiments came to an end in the late 1950s with the deletion of infantry regiments and battalions and their replacement by "battle groups" of the short-lived Pentomic era. In the early 1960s the Army abandoned battle groups for brigades and battalions, and in recent years the use of "Airborne Infantry Regiment" and "Parachute Infantry Regiment" has been revived even though they are long-obsolete designations, and current designations simply list them as "infantry regiment."

For examples of actual designations, see these lineages from the US Army Center of Military History website:

1-325th http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0325in001bn.htm

1-504th http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0504in001bn.htm

1-505th http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0505in001bn.htm

1-508th http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0508in001bn.htm

While the designations from the World War II era are popular, they do not reflect actual designations of the current era.VilePig (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Equipment

Was the 82nd issued any equipment? Would be nice to know in an appropriate section. Crock8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Market Garden

The section on Operation Market Garden seems a bit brief and disingenuous from such a significant campaign. The section states "the 82nd captured its objectives between Grave, and Nijmegen. Its success, however, was short-lived because the defeat of other Allied units at the Battle of Arnhem." This is accurate in the sence that all objective outside of Nijmegen were captured, but does seem to gloss over the rather significant delay in the capture of the vital Nijmegen bridge until the heroic assault crossing on day 4. This in itself is one thing, but to then blame other units, presumably the 1st Airborne, for the overall failur of the operation is poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.194 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 82nd Airborne Division. 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/20131215123046/http://fayobserver.com:80/articles/2013/12/13/1302575?sac=fo.military to http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2013/12/13/1302575?sac=fo.military

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 14:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Martin

I deleted the text about PFC Martin telling an NCO to park his vehicle behind him (Martin) because "I'm the 82nd Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are going!" The Army used to have a recruiting poster that credited a trooper in the 101st with saying that and, to top it off, the name Thomas Martin does not appear in the version of the cited ref by Toland available at Google Books.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

1989 Order of Battle Chart

This line-and-block-chart is all gooned-up. It lists the battalions as having a "Staff Company" - at no point in the history of the United States Army, have we ever had a "staff company" in a battalion. We have a "Headquarters and Headquarters Company" in a battalion (or a 'Troop' or a 'Battery" depending on the type of battalion). Depending on the MTOE, we also can have a "Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment" or "Service Company" .... but no such animal as a "Staff Company".

The chart also depicts a star over the brigade icon, indicating that a Brigadier General commands the brigades ... again - no such animal. Colonels command divisional brigades in the United States Army.

I recommend that whoever can edit org charts, go ina nd do these corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.111.128 (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Cf. 101st Airborne Division article

The 101st Airborne Division article is a pretty good example of what this could look like if we work on it. DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Market Garden and theBulge

I have tried editing these sections a little but they are still very poor. I am not sure if they should be detailed or merely refer to the articles on those battles....inviting others to chime in and/or edit. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting for the 2nd time some content on the Bulge. Two reasons: one, this is the 82nd article, not the battle of the bulge article nor the fans of the Waffen-SS article. Second, the NPOV statements about the "legendary" "elite" Waffen SS have no place here. No one took a poll to find out what "people" want to see in this article.

We should add content on what the 82nd did in these two campaigns. That need not include a list of German equipment or fetishistic claims about them.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It was not about the Waffen SS. It was about giving the 82nd Airborne credit for enduring circumstances that favored the Waffen SS. It's not about being a fan of the Waffen SS. People enjoy details. This article is lacking in many ways. People like you do not help matters.157.182.216.2 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Third revert; please stop with this. Labelling Peiper "legendary" is NPOV. One could as easily call him "the war criminal Peiper" but you chose not to do that. So it isn't simply NPOV, it is fandom and has no place in this or any other wiki article.

The rest is simply irrelevant (and dare I say fandom again) details that have nothing to do with the battle or the 82nd. If folks want to know how German Panzer divisions were equipped, they can follow the links for those units. If you are so interested in equipment, since this is the 82nd article perhaps you want to describe how they were equipped?

This article is lacking - we agree there. Adding cited content about the 82nd would be very helpful.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you implying that I am a fan of the Waffen SS. I had two grandfathers fight the Nazis. I had five other ancestors perish defending Moscow from the Das Reich division. You need to do a better job expressing yourself. Like I said who are you to continue to remove valuable information from these articles? You are simply being over sensitive and doing more harm than good.Fury 1991 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Fury 1991

You're right. I invite other editors to comment on this disputed content. I continue to believe it does not belong in this article. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

DMorpheus2, I have been monitoring these exchanges, and I concur with you. This is an encyclopedia article (i.e., "just the facts, please"), and should not contain hyperbole, opinion, or inflated rhetoric re the capabilities or characteristics of the people/units involved. Fury 1991, if you want to publish an article, present a monograph, or write a book about the subject, under your own name, then by all means you are free to do so. However, as an encyclopedia article this work should represent a "scholarly" consensus of the community rather than a singular viewpoint of an individual's or a particular group's interest. CobraDragoon (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That information came from valid published sources. I hardly consider it hyperbole. It gave a good account of what the 82nd Airborne had to deal with. Have it your way. The article is.......boring and bland. Inflated rhetoric? You might want to read up on the Waffen SS. Fury 1991 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Fury 1991

1919-1921 ?

"For the next 20 years the 82nd Division existed only as a unit of the Organized Reserve.[12] It was reconstituted on 24 June 1921". Huh ? Rcbutcher (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Entry into Berlin

"Following Germany's surrender, the 82nd entered Berlin for occupation duty, lasting from April until December 1945". April 1945 in Berlin ? I don't think so. Needs to be more precise. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 82nd Airborne Division. 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/20140109035933/http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3944 to http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3944

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

PIR and AIR

The list of current infantry units includes the 501st, 504th, 505th and 508th "Parachute" Infantry Regiments and the 325th "Airborne" Infantry Regiment. In December 1947 the Army ceased using the designation "Parachute Infantry Regiment" in favor of "Airborne Infantry Regiment" (a year later this included former glider units that had converted to parachute, such as the 325th), which in turn became obsolete with the advent of the Pentomic era (battle group designations) in the late 1950s. The term "regiment" was itself obsolete until 2005 when the Army started to use it again, not for tactical organization, but merely for purposes of lineage and honors. Every infantry regiment, whether it's heavy, light, airborne, etc., is "infantry regiment." The Army never went back to using PIR and AIR, as reflected by this official statement of lineage and honors for the 1st Battalion, 504th Infantry Regiment:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0504in001bn.htm

While the use of the PIR designation is widespread and popular, it is also unofficial and erroneous, and does not reflect actual current unit designations. It is indicative of the fascination with, and the veneration of, the WW II era.

Since the 325th was a Glider Infantry Regiment, not a Parachute Infantry Regiment, it is referred to as an Airborne Infantry Regiment, the designation it carried starting in December 1948; however, that is not its actual current designation, as shown here:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0325in001bn.htm

VilePig (talk)

All correct. Battalions, however, carried the designation "Airborne" so the usage "back in my day" would be e.g. "1st Battalion (Airborne), XXX Infantry Regiment". I don't know if this is still the current usage. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, in a previous era (early 1960s to around 2005) one might refer to one's unit as "1st Battalion (Airborne), XXX Infantry" (the term "Regiment" was not back in official use yet), but no longer. Without any fanfare, around 2005 the Army ceased using such parenthetical designations as Airborne, Air Assault, Light, Mechanized, etc. Going off on a bit of a tangent, one of those designations, Air Assault, is no longer a type of unit, but rather is an Additional Skill Identifier (ASI) for an individual soldier who has graduated from an Air Assault course. Since the loss of its second aviation brigade in 2015, the 101st Airborne Division is no longer Air Assault and now is a light infantry division, structured along the same lines as the 10th Mountain Division. Both units have designations and insignia that recall past glories but do not reflect current organizational structure (e.g., the 10th is not a mountain unit and the 101st is not an Airborne unit).VilePig (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Indiantown gap deployment 8-80

It was the 1st BN 505th that went. I was there. Article say's "1st oh four".  Doc Wright 1/505 C co. 3rd PLT Medic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:B01:E2A:B16C:2B68:A1A7:FE7 (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 

Potentially Unreliable Source

Might want to look into source [4] as it's making a fairly bold claim without providing any evidence. The article states "Some sources consider the 82nd Airborne the best trained light infantry division in the world" when really it's only one source, and that source is dubious. The referenced article is full of spelling and grammar errors, and simply makes the claim without going into detail or providing evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.75.99 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

New unit: A Company, 4-68 Armor

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/297992/light-armored-unit-activated-82nd-airborne-division

To be inserted?

Sammartinlai (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The U.S. Army Center of Military History has confirmed that the designation of this provisional unit, which consists only of Company A, is neither authorized nor recognized by HQ Department of the Army. As such, the new unit has no connection with or nor is it authorized the lineage of the actual 4th Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment.VilePig (talk)

VilePig, per the same conversation on the 68th Armored talk page, Wikipeida needs you to show a publicized item (such an official Army GENSER message or online article) to prove your claim, particularly when it conflicts with other published Army information. In other words, you saying that someone said something is defined as "hearsay" and demanding that the world trust you or email your source directly to confirm your statement is not how things work. You are highlighting a possible internal Army disagreement that has not been officially acknowledge in the public domain. Once there is an official Army comment/position in the public domain from the U.S. Army, your information remains "hearsay." --McChizzle (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

April, 2022 Dubious Tag

I've inserted the Dubious tag concerning a reference citing to globalsecurity.com. The reason for this is that the website appears to be a private interest blog which self-claims to be an expert. Therefore, additional citation to independent sources to independently verify the alleged credential is necessary, unless the facts claimed are verified through multiple and independent citations to the relevant facts. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)