Talk:3rd Infantry Division (United States)

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

More information about OIF (specifically OIF I)[edit]

Is it just me, or should there be a lot more information about the "Road to Baghdad" and the ground operations during OIF I and OIF in general. --Signaleer 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Thunder Run by the 3rd Division through Baghdad was a pivotal event in the unit's history. It produced a Medal of Honor[1] and some considerable press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotle1776 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Beyond that the labelling of OIF I, OIF III, OIF V is absolute bunk. The timeframes for those are unique to 3rd Infantry Divison, what they were calling OIF V, others were calling OIF IV, or OIF VI. There is nothing scholarly about, and especially now that all the actual campaigns have been given actual names. Those are just nicknames given to troop rotations from inside the various organizations. Early on the campaigns were nicknamed OIF I, II etc. The official version is Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is subdivided into a series of 7 or 8 strategic phases, such as, "Liberation of Iraq" and "Iraqi Surge." Those phases also equal campaign stars for the campaign medal, and if you look at the dates 3rd infantry division has earned.... all of them. Just saying. I would edit the entire thing myself, but i just don't have the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.141.114 (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name?[edit]

Is it really supposed to be '3d Infantry Division (United States)' instead of 3rd? Does the army not use the 'r', uhh, except that it's used all over the place elsewhere

MGlosenger 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea it's kind of messed up. Someone already moved the page to reflect the fix and I fixed the non linked occurrences. Curious how this happened in the first place, a cultural thing? Flamesplash 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, a Google search for "3d infantry" does result in about 59,300 matches, though "3rd infantry" results in about 493,000. There's even a US Government "Division Matrix" web page that refers to them as the '3d Infantry', but that was last updated November 12 2004 and some of the images have broken links.
I'd guess they're used interchangeably within the US Army, but it makes more sense to me to use the standard spelling than to use some spelling that is apparently unique to the US Army. MGlosenger 01:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that there is an archaic use of '3d' instead of '3rd', but before I moved it I checked the division's official website and it used '3rd'. I'm all in favor of using accurate technical terminology, but when a particular institution uses bizarre/archaic versions of normal words or contractions, I don't think we are obliged to follow. E.g. (on a quite different topic) the Pennsylvania Railroad always used the archaic 'employe' instead of 'employee' in all offical documents, but I don't think we thereby have to follow that in our article about them, unless we're verbatim quoting an official document. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of '3D' instead of '3rd' is used throughout the military. It is shorthand and I do not believe it is by anyone's understanding 'official'. Aristotle1776 (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Article[edit]

  • Strongly Support I am not the user who suggested to merge the two articles but it seems to be that it was unnecessary to create a separate article just to state that the Rock of the Marne is the nickname of the division. Who ever did this probably had good intentions but it does not make any logical sense for it to exist. -Signaleer 07:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Of course, I agree! Why create a seperate article when you could just add a section in th 3rdID for it? --James5 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname[edit]

Someone had added a section on how the division earned its nickname to the start of the article. I moved this to the end of the World War I section as, historically, this is when it occurred and it therefore reads better. However, I notice that the end of the previous section (Order of Battle) covers much of the same information. It may therefore be worth these two sections being merged, or the parts related to the nickname being removed from the Order of Battle section - otherwise the nickname information is, essentially, duplicated. CultureDrone (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment on U.S. Soil[edit]

This seems to me like it should be on ITN or something. Or at least be expanded. Given a personal history of haranguing jackasses who just bitch about editing not being done, I guess this kinda makes me a hypocrite. I am a hypocrite. -Fredgoat (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some details, references, quotes from General Casey, etc. I also moved the section to the top of the article where it belongs and included reference to it in the LeadCritical Chris (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Coup Theory[edit]

The Coup Theory section is nothing but wild-eyed allegations with no supporting evidence whatsoever. It has no factual basis and should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "can" anything on here. Which policy sir? Please educate me. It surely cannot be WP:NOTCENSORED My edits are well sourced. Please see the references. This re-deployment has been reported in the Army Times, the theory is also well sourced in an encyclopedic context. You are welcome to work with me and other editors in a collaborative editing process, but you cannot just vandalize and vaporize sourced material.Critical Chris (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this should have its own seperate page and not on this unit page.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome to make good contributions in the form of new articles. I'm not sure the depth of this section merits segregation in another article, though as it's depth grows, this may change.Critical Chris (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of the 3rd Division's involvement in a coup d'Etat have been raised by one person, viz., Naomi Wolf. If a bloodless coup of any kind has occurred in this country, prove it. Cite named references in the text. The 3rd Div is where it is under the lawful orders of President George W. Bush as authorized by the United States Congress. Any conspiracy arguments are with them - not the 3rd Division. The 3rd Division page should contain factual information only. Any political issues should be discussed elsewhere. I would suggest that the discussion be moved to the Naomi Wolf page (which is already under a cloud). Of course, if George W. Bush refuses to yield up the White House to Barack Obama come next January, I will be back here to eat my crow. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Virgil. Move the info to the Naomi Wolf page. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 16:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just Wolf, it's Daniel Ellsberg, the patriot who leaked the Pentagon Papers, who, truth be told has appeared with Wolf at public speaking events, so one might view the two of them monolithically. Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now has also reported on this, despite a corporate media blackout. The editorial board of the Seattle Post Intelligencer has also reported on this in it's op/ed sections. Has a bloodless coup occurred or is it about to occur? Well, that'd be a very hard to prove fact if several congressman have had their school age daughters threatened, more probably by a paramilitary force of some sort, you know, folks that DON'T take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That's what Mussolini and Hitler put together: the Blackshirts and the Brownshirts. Representative Brad Sherman has publicly stated that he, and several members of the United States House of Representatives, were threatened with Martial Law if they didn't pass the Cash for Trash US$700Billion Bailout package. Certainly, on a personal level, I have to wonder about Karl Rove ignoring Congressional subpoenas, and the lack of indictment for Contempt of Congress. Yet, none of us should include original research, which I haven't. The spectre of a coup has been written about and is included in the article here in the context of THEORY and CONTROVERSY. Nobody is purporting this to be a FACT such as say....the size of the Congressional appropriation the House Armed Services Committee kicks down. If a military unit is being written about by scholars and investigative journalists, with a prominent degree of public notability, a proper encyclodedic treatment of the topic might beg inclusion, yes right here in this article...in the proper context and weighting of course. Counterveiling research and theory also has a context for inclusion. Remember, this wikipedia article is NOT a purely "factual" glossy brochure in a military recruiting office at a shopping mall, it's not the Army Times either, it's not army.mil. That being said, as per WP:WEIGHT this section could use pairing down and better citations and references. I'm not going to call an army of Sock Puppets to step forward here, but would like to make some changes to the section on the redeployment of the 1st brigade, list this article on some additonal project pages related to Political Science topics, and let some other editors weigh in on this question. For now, keep in mind, the neutrality tag does stand, weakening the section's credibility against the rest of the article.Critical Chris (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've paired down this section a bit as per weight concerns.Critical Chris (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting it down was probably a good idea. The problem here, I think, isn't that the coverage is wrong, it's that the rest of the article is so bad. In the division's 90+ years of operation, there have probably been plenty of controversies surrounding it, but there really hasn't been a very in-depth look at the Unit (otherwise it would be a GA or FA). Still, if a [[1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division]] page is created, I would say that it should be relocated there. In terms of the brigade's 90 year history, this one little unit restationing and the disagreement it has caused a handful of people is not that relavent in the grand scope of things. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this article to reach GA, FA, you should invite a well-rounded comprehensive treatment of the subject. This section of the article on the redeployment, by the way, is arguably the most notable aspect of the Division of 2008, in terms of the Division's perception in the public limelight.Critical Chris (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that a visit and remarks by GEN Casey, Chief of Staff of the US Army given its own subsection? If this were done for every unit, whenever a Chief of Staff visited it or spoke about it, all the unit articles would be littered with dates of visits, and remarks. I recommend it be either rolled into its assignment to USNORTHCOM, or it be deleted completely. Furthermore this "concern" of a conspiracy theory is already listed on the USNORTHCOM article, why does it need repeating on this article? As you are the one who appears to be deadset on having this section, I will wait on your action.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can't delete relevant, notable, well-cited material without a comprehensive collaborative editing process. This topic, and the comments made by Casey during his visit, merit inclusion here as this topic is more easily accessible to a researcher that's not as familiar with military unit/division/brigade partitioning as you are. Segregating the information into a separate article can serve to marginalize the material in question, and makes it more esoteric, obscure, and harder to find for the average researcher.Critical Chris (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem is that there aren't very many people who are putting a lot of effort into the page, as you can see, it's a mess. I'm probably the person who is most active with working on US Army units on Wikipedia, and in the year I've been monitoring this page it hasn't seen much development. I'll get to it someday, and the single note about Casey will be downsized. It does deserve a sentence or two in the article I imagine. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 06:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put some "effort" into this article, don't agree with your assertion that it's a mess, will continue to monitor and edit this article, and I'm not going anywhere, and I'm am here to work with you on a collaborative editing process to continue to improve this article. Thanks for your edits, sir.Critical Chris (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Concerned section which I added has since been removed and the move of 1st Brigage to USNORTHCOM has been moved under notable people. I will correct this. I do not agree with the addition of .Critical Chris, however that does not mean his additions deserve to be deleted.207.114.206.48 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this material should be completely exiled to United States Northern Command. If anything, because of it's public notability in the news media, it merits inclusion in both articles to allow researchers to more easily find relevant information on the subject, unless of course you are interested in suppressing access to this important informationCritical Chris (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-additions regarding the conspiracy theory concern should go into its own section, and not under the redeployment section, as it is in other articles, if it is to be included here at all. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you sir, like it or not, and you may be the Commander in Chief himself, that really doesn't matter here on Wikipedia anyways. Notable political theory and major media coverage about the deployment of this unit onto US soil is --and forever will be-- a part of the history of the 3rd Infantry Division, and thus belongs in the "history" section. You cannot just sweep this topic under the rug, marginalizing it away to an awkward layout position at the end of the article, obscured by section after section of "bullet point" material about Division structure and such. Do you care to defend that as good editing for an encyclopedia article? Also if I can try to be helpful here for a moment, you should consider making your wikipedia edits under an actual username. Please see this article here for further details sir: Wikipedia:Username policyCritical Chris (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple redeploying of units through out a units lineage is an inherent part of a mility unit. If we were to chronicle this single movement in detail, then it would make sense to chronicle in detail, with comments concerning that movement, every single time a unit were to be restationed to a new location. Rather you heavily weight this conspiracy theory at the end of the history article regarding this single particular restationing. This contrevorsy, or what you claim to be a contrevorsy, does not belong in the history section, just as much as other divisions controvertial acts or redeployments should be included in theirs. Other articles have a place for concern/contreversy sections, and that is definatly not in history. For instance it was controversal for units to be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and there has been a lot of comment about their actions there and why they disagree with it, but those concerns were given their own sections, if included at all.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it to its own section, otherwise, if it is undone, I would suggest that an unbalanced tag is placed on it, as it seems to be very heavily weighted for a single point in a long history of the unit, and may have POV concerns if readded into the factual history section. I believe it has a place in this article, just not in history.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the editors that believe the material in the controversy section really doesn't belong here in the 3rd ID article. This controversy doesn't really apply to 3rd ID per se, but rather to the designation of a Combat Arms Brigadefor possible domestic use. US Army North would likely be a better place for this information. Additionally, this is not a 'combat deployment.' Last time I checked, the US Army was not involved in hostilties on US soil, and the brigade was not deployed, but rather assigned to NORTHCOM. I'm going to edit that bit out. MWShort (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the editors as well. As far as a "bloodless coup d'etat" is concerned, one U.S. Army brigade combat team does not have the manpower, firepower, or command and control abilities to overthrow the United States Government. MWShort makes a good point, that the brigade has been attached (not re-assigned) to USNORTHCOM, as any brigade returning from USCENTCOM is (that is, coming back from the Middle East). While the rest of the 3d division will be training to redeploy to CENTCOM operations, the 1st brigade will be training for possible support operations on American soil. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Info Boxes[edit]

I've noticed a long laundry list of information in the form of information boxes, it not only stretches the article but it create a big gap between the main text in the article. Can this information be organizationed so it does not create this effect for the reader. -Signaleer (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They could presumably be moved so that they didn't create the gap, but as most of the article is just a series of lists and such, at this point there's only so much that can be done. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Structure[edit]

Since we cannot agree on certain placement of content, it appears we need to discuss the structure of this article. In other articles where there is controversy or critism of an action relating to the subject, this is usually added near the end of the article, as it is opinion based, rather than fact based. Statements of opinion regarding the subject have a rightful place, but are usually reserved for after factual statements are given. Furthermore it was brought up that there are many sections of this article that are just continuing lists that could be cleaned up.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already precedence for the structure based on previous examples of other United States Army divisions. There is more than enough information to have sub-articles which deal with the specifics (i.e., history of 3rd Infantry Division in World War II, etc.). -Signaleer (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Headquarters[edit]

According to http://www.forscom.army.mil/cmd_staff/orgchart/OrganizationalChart.htm, the 3rd ID falls under FORSCOM, not 18th Airborne Corps. Anyone know different. The website if official for FORSCOM. Mrshankly01 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a difficult concept the way the Army is structured. Forces Command is responsible for all Army units for readiness reporting and general state of being and "training". The Corps HQ is the highest tactical unit HQ and has several divisions and independent brigades and perhaps a regiment too that are assigned to it. All of those tactical units report their readiness status up to Corps where it is grouped and forwarded to FORSCOM who reports it to DA. Tactically, Combatant Commands control the employment of the Corps'/Divisions/Brigades, but I did not serve under that structure and know little of it. Hope that helps some. Bottom line is that the Divisions are assigned to a Corps HQ but may be deployed seperatly or cross attached to another HQ for deployment.Meyerj (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


3rd ID fell under the command of XVIII Airborne Corps until 2006, since then it falls under FORSCOM directly.

XVIII Airborne Corps to lose commands Army Times
XVIII Airborne Corps to lose commands
October 03, 2006
Associated Press
FORT BRAGG, N.C. — The XVIII Airborne Corps no longer is in command of the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Ga., and in December won’t have the 101st Airborne Division under its command. It’s all part of the Army’s continuing transformation, a post spokesman said Monday. The 3rd Infantry came from under the XVIII Airborne Corps on Sunday. The changes will make the corps headquarters fit more neatly into the modular organization concept under which units are more independent and can be plugged into larger battle groups as needed around the world. Transformation involves downsizing divisions of 10,000 ore more soldiers to smaller brigades of about 3,000 that can operate independently or be included under larger theater commands, like that in Iraq. The corps "won’t have the responsibility of running the post as in the past," said spokesman Col. Billy Bucker. In the past, the commander of the corps has had four divisions under him as well as responsibility for all of Fort Bragg, one of the two largest Army posts in the country. Now, the corps headquarters will be configured to deploy and become the command "module" of an army in the field and not have to worry about training the divisions at home. The corps headquarters and its former divisions will report to Forces Command, which is coming to Fort Bragg around 2010. Eventually, the 82nd Airborne and 10th Mountain Division, located at Fort Drum, N.Y., will come from under the XVIII Airborne umbrella next year, Bucker said. At some point, the commander of the 82nd will be in charge of the post. "The mission of XVIII Airborne Corps will change in that it will focus more on its primary warfighting mission," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, commander of the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg. The XVIII Airborne Corps will be one of only three corps left in the Army by 2011. Already, the corps has disbanded and sent to other units its aviation brigade and is planning the same for its artillery, medical and communications commands.
Bullmoosebell (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well thanks. I guess this old Soldier should read the paper more:-) Meyerj (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I've been a member of 3ID (3rd HBCT) since shortly before that transition. The water tower on Kelley Hill (Fort Benning) still reflects the Sky Dragon insignia. This is history of the division potentially asked about in the Enlisted Promotion board.
Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • My dad was in route to Korea from Devens, 7th INF/3ID, when I was born. My silver baby cup has the 3ID patch on it and went to Korea with the Regimental Adjutant. So I was borne into the 3d. Never served with them; I was in the 3d MARDIV in Okinawa and the 1st Armored Division in Germany & at both 7th and III Corps HQ Meyerj (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3d ID (M) Edits & Formatting[edit]

This is in reference to recent edits by GraemeLeggett
First off, thanks for your assistance with editing the 3d Infantry Division article. You're been a great help. I apologize if we seem to be stepping on each other's toes between edits. Perhaps I can shed some justification on my edits.

  • Boldfacing the awards themselves will be removed, all of them (not just a few). Thanks for the clarity on that. The format I received must have been written incorrectly.
  • Capitalizing the battle streamers, according to the reference (the US Army Intsitute of Heraldry & US Army Corps of Lineage & Honors), the battle streamers are embroidered as capitals and should be reflected as such (i.e. KOREA not Korea, COLMAR not Colmar). I'm sorry to say the 13th AD article does not reflect any battle streamers and the 3-3 Marines do not have any battle streamers embroidered with words, just devices (campaign stars). However, 1st Battalion 107th Cavalry Regiment, does reflect their awards as they are embroidered on the streamers.
  • Removing Regiment specification is used for visual aesthetics on Wikipedia as well as US Military doctrination, given the New Manning System (CARS and USARS), IAW AR 600-82. The term Regiment is used as parent organizations for historical purposes, but the primary building blocks are divisions, brigades, and battalions. Each battalion carries an association with a parent regiment, even though the regimental organization no longer exists in the US Army, with exception to a few units that carry the name for lineage (2nd, 3rd, & 11th Armored-Cavalry Regiment and 75th Ranger Regiment). As such, Battalions, which fall directly under a Brigade parent-unit, are known only by their Corps, or branch, not Regiment.
    • Bull, first doctrination isn't a word that I could find in any dictionary. Second you are wrong about removing the Regimental or otherwise unit level identification. By doing that you are rewriting history and the Army nomenclature of the period for which the subject is being talked about. At least through the Korean Conflict the Army's regimental system meant that the Regiment had all of its own battalion assets. Three battalions, probably a tank company etc. etc. etc. A Regimental Combat Team would be +'d up or - assets. (MacArthur did a lot of that to the 3d ID in Korea.) So you are applying a modern standard to historical fact and thereby changing written history. The Divisions prior to WWII did not have MOS identification. The 1st Division became the 1st Infantry Division. The 102d Engineer Regiment needs to be identified as such because in early 1942 its assets were split off to make combat engineer battalions and the Regimental HQ became the 102d Engineer Battalion. So the designation is needed for historical accuracy. Check the date on the AR and determine when the change came about. As for visual aesthetics on Wikipedia, well you will have to show me the written rule on that one.Meyerj (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MAJ Audie Murphy is listed as a Major (not Lieutenant, or any appropriate US Military abbreviations) because that is his title, being the last rank he attained in any US Military component, just as the rest of the members are listed likewise. For instance, General Eisenhower's last military position held was President, which is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military, but the last rank held was General of the Army in two components (Regular Army and Army of the United States). Alternately, the highest rank he attained in the National Army and United States Army components was Lieutenant Colonel and Captain, respectively. This is also evident and common knowledge in Murphy's WW II unit; 3rd Platoon, Baker Company, 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry, 3d Infantry Division, in which I spent two combat deployments over more than three years attached as their Medic.

Again, considering good faith, I appreciate your help in making my Division's page better.

Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your thinking. Addressing specifically the caps on the streamers etc. While the US Army has its own "manual of style" for display, wikipedia's own MoS generally takes precedence. It has been drawn up for clarity and ungerstanding of general readers rather than those in the know. There are ways to approach the differences. One is to rephrase the table such that in the notes alongside the award the event for which it was awarded is linked as it is is generally known and the form of words that is embrodiered on the streamer is separately noted. "Awarded for Colmar Pocket, streamer carries the word 'Colmar'". A single footnote beside the table, or at the base of the article could be added to inform that it is in capitals on the actual streamer and why "US Army practice is to give the name in capitals eg COLMAR" (note use of slightly reduced font to compensate for the stress that ALLCAPS DELIVERS. Another is to have an image of the streamers complete with wording. Or a combination of these ideas.
And on a related thought, why are the divisional artillery and band awards treated separately?

Combat Aviation Brigade vs. 3d Combat Aviation Brigade[edit]


With the exception of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), which has two combat aviation brigades (101st and 159th), divisional combat aviation brigades are not numbered, and in this case it's simply "Combat Aviation Brigade, 3d Infantry Division." The error shown in the article is due to a common misperception that exists throughout the Army. The correct designation can be confirmed with Ned Bedessem, the Aviation POC at

  • US Army Center of Military History, ATTN: AAMH-FPO (Mr. Bedessem), 103 Third Avenue, Fort McNair, DC 20319-5058
  • Ned Bedessem, Force Structure and Unit History Branch, US Army Center of Military History, (202) 685-2732; DSN 325-2732, edward.bedessem@us.army.mil


If CABs within divisions were numbered and carried the same number as the division, then the 1st Infantry Division, 1st Armored Division, and 1st Cavalry Division would all have a unit called the 1st Combat Aviation Brigade, which would also duplicate the designation of the 1st Aviation Brigade, a combat unit that served in Vietnam and now exists as a schoolhouse unit at Fort Rucker, AL.
VilePig (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably want to bring this to the attention of User:Ryan.opel, who has done some page moving, notably of Combat Aviation Brigade, 10th Mountain Division. —Ed!(talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates for the Commanders! Why Commanders from 2001 forward are without dates?[edit]

Great job the article. I am just going to update the German Article where in the infobox the Commander is still that one who gave the command already in 2011 to Robert Abrams, this brings me to the question. From WW 1 there is the list: 

Commanders
1.MG Joseph T. Dickman (28 November 1917)
2.BG J. A. Irons (11 February 1918)
3.MG Joseph T. Dickman (13 February 1918)
4.BG J. A. Irons (27 February 1918)
5.BG Charles Crawford (8 March 1918)
6.BG J. A. Irons (10 March 1918)
7.BG Charles Crawford (19 March 1918)
8.MG Joseph T. Dickman (12 April 1918)
9.BG F. W. Sladen (18 August 1918)
10.MG Beaumond B. Buck (27 August 1918)
11.BG Preston Brown (18 October 1918)
12.MG Robert L. Howze (19 November 1918)

This continues with the exact date of every General Commander of the 3rd Division in World War 1 from November 1917 as the USA joined the war here too at a late point, not just the month, even the Days are there! That is a great job! But does anyone know why there was such a big fluctuation?! 28 November 1917 to 19 November 1918, less than a year and 12 Commanders! This is of course good for the 12 Generals to become "MG" (Major General) or Lieutenant General or even General of the Army (4 Star General) later.

I see now there is a gap between WW1 and WW2, in WW2 the 7 commanders are listed, than a small gap and the 5 Commanders in the Korea War follow and than 1953 through 2000 (in fact until December 2001). So except 1918 to July 1940 the list is complete with all commanders.

But than the most recent commanders are without dates, the last one is in the category from "1953 through 2000" serving to December 2001, from Dec 2001 until this Day we have these 5 Major Generals (very low fluctuation now? Number of Generals is lower today I think) 

Global War on Terror
Commanders
MG Buford Blount
MG William Grant Webster
MG Rick Lynch
MG Tony Cucolo
MG Robert B. Abrams

Absolutely no dates! Not even year or month. Why? Is there a reason, I think I saw the date where Tony Cucolo (as I said in German Wiki he still is the Commander) gave over the Command to Robert B. Abrams in Cucolos Article. But I mean it should be not hard to get the dates for the person who added all the other dates for the 59 Generals and the other 5 commanding Generals without date (it would be more if the gap from November 1918 to July 1940 would be closed ;) Or is there anything I don't see/get?!

Greetings from Berlin :) Kilon22 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Division History[edit]

In case it proves useful, I came across this while working on the Garlin Murl Conner page.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 3rd Infantry Division (United States). 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:

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

checkY 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3rd 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:

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) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Unit Information Box Lead Image[edit]

I have replaced the lead image in the unit information box in order to maintain uniformity set by the Wikipedia community. Most of the U.S. Army divisions have the: CSIB, shoulder sleeve insignia, or similar as the lead image on the information box, not a historic photograph. If you plan to make changes or revert the lead image, please discuss here.

Examples are cited below:

-Signaleer (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rock of the Marne vs Marne Division[edit]

An IP user made a change to the article changing the division name from Rock of the Marne to Marne Division. The 3rd Infantry Division's official nickname is: Rock of the Marne but the Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division is known as Marne Division. This is referenced on the U.S. Army's Center of Military History's (CMH) 3rd Infantry Division's page located the bottom in the General section. Although the 38th Infantry Regiment is officially known as Rock of the Marne, the 3rd Infantry Division adopted the same nickname. This is an undisputed fact. There are numerous articles that supports this claim:

Nickname: Rock of the Marne. Slogan: The words of Maj. Gen. Joseph Dickman are sometimes employed, "Nous resterons la!" Shoulder patch: A square containing three diagonal white stripes on dark blue field. Association: Society of the Third Infantry Division, P. O. Box 74, Franklin Station, Washington 4, D. C. Publications: History of the Third Infantry Division, World War II, by unit members; The Infantry Journal, 115 Seventeenth Street NW., Washington 6, D. C.; 1947 ; 575 pp. Blue and White Devils, by unit members; TI&E, ETOUSA ; distributor, Society of the Third Infantry Division.

The 3d Division earned the title "Rock of the Marne" at Chateau Thierry in July 1918.

Although fighting on three sides, the riflemen and machine gunners of the 38th Infantry held their ground, earning the sobriquet "Rock of the Marne." The 3rd Infantry Division is still known by that moniker, and its Soldiers are proud of the heritage that inspired it.

Moreover, the accomplishments of the 3rd ID in regard to their treatment and training of their horses, as well as the speedy construction of the animals’ facilities, were two not insignificant achievements of the division that was to make its reputation as the ‘Rock of The Marne’.

While surrounding units retreated, the 3rd Infantry Division, under the command of Major General Joseph T. Dickman, remained rock solid and earned its reputation as the "Rock of the Marne.” General "Black Jack" Pershing said the Division's performance was one of the most brilliant in United States history.

The 3rd ID has a rich and storied history. The division was activated at Camp Greene, North Carolina, on November 21, 1917. During World War I, as a member of the American Expeditionary Force to Europe, the Division earned its name as the “Rock of the Marne” when surrounding allied units retreated and 3rd ID remained.

The division earned the designation “Rock of the Marne” at the Marne River near Chateau-Thierry on July 15, 1918. When flanking units retreated, then Division Commander, Major General Joseph Dickman, told our French Allies “Nous Resterons La” (we shall remain here). This motto is on the 3rd Infantry Division’s distinctive insignia.

Activated in November 1917 during World War I at Camp Greene, North Carolina, the Division went into combat for the first time eight months later in France. At midnight on July 14, 1918, the Division earned lasting distinction. Engaged in the Aisne-Marne Offensive, the Division was protecting Paris at a position on the banks of the Marne River. When flanking units retreated, then Division Commander, Major General Joseph Dickman, told our French allies "Nous Resterons La - We shall remain here." The 3rd Infantry Division remained rock solid and earned its reputation as the "Rock of the Marne".

The Army activated the 3rd Division on November 21, 1917 at Camp Greene, North Carolina in order to provide combat power to the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I. In July 1918, 3 ID went into combat, for the first time, against the German Army, on the banks of the Marne River in France during the Second Battle of the Marne, the division acquired its nickname “Rock of the Marne.” The division has 56 Medal of Honor recipients, more than any other Army division.

Marne Week is usually celebrated on the third week of November to commemorate the division’s birthday. The 3rd ID founded their reputation as the “Rock,” as the division held the Marne River against ferocious German attacks while other allies were forced to retreat. Marne Week showcases the “Rock of the Marne” division, honoring past and present Dogface Soldiers, Family members, and communities.

The many events will serve as a chance to bring Dogface Soldiers past and present, and their families together to enjoy comradery and celebrate being members of the Rock of the Marne Division.

We climbed the hillside in the Champagne region of France near a little town called Moulin, where the 30th and 38th Infantry Regiments of the newly formed 3rd ID held fast along the Marne River, and became forever known as the "Rock of the Marne."

If there is any misunderstanding or confusion in regards to this, please discuss and provide evidence on this topic. The articles and websites above, with the exception of a document published on a university website, all come from the official United States Army website to include: U.S. Army Center of Military History (CMH), Fort Stewart (Home of the 3rd Infantry Division), and directly from 3rd Infantry Division's website. There are additional articles and documents to add to this list but there isn't enough time or space to add to this discussion. -Signaleer (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently created Wikipedia user, FirefoxS117 reverted the division name to Marne Division, this is most likely the same IP user 206.39.41.3 who made a recent edit. I have reverted the division nickname, I would encourage @FirefoxS117: to comment and provide supporting information or articles to support this claim. I have already provided adequate relevant information and evidence for the revert. I would encourage other users to comment and weigh in as well. -Signaleer (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On thing to mention as well, HHBN, 3rd ID (Marne Division) is 3rd ID. Please see here: 3rd ID
Constituted 12 November 1917 in the Regular Army as Headquarters, 3d Division (bunch of history between) Reorganized and redesignated 16 November 2010 as Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 3d Infantry Division (organic elements concurrently constituted and activated). Note that according to their Lineages and Honors, they are still called the "Marne Division".
As pointed out, you do reference one of their publications as well, seen here: The Marne On page 35 "The sobriquet, originally applied just to McAlexander, was altered slightly and eventually extended to encompass the 38th Infantry as a whole: “The Rock of the Marne.” The 3d Division likewise became known as the “Marne Division.” The is no mention of 3rd ID being called "The Rock of the Marne", only the 38th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FirefoxS117 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the same THE MARNE article published on the CMH website. On page 35, it reads:

The sobriquet, originally applied just to McAlexander, was altered slightly and eventually extended to encompass the 38th Infantry as a whole: “The Rock of the Marne.” The 3d Division likewise became known as the “Marne Division.”

In this particular case, I strongly feel the two authors, Stephen C. McGeorge and Mason W. Watson, were mistaken for the Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Division being known as Marne Division instead of the division's nickname Rock of the Marne. I have seen references to the Headquarters being known as this but not the division. There is overwhelming evidence and articles that support this claim, namely from the numerous: Fort Stewart, 3rd Infantry Division, and United States Army (www.army.mil) official websites listed above, in addition to the 3rd Infantry Division on the CMH website that I previously listed. -Signaleer (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Anzio Participation:[edit]

Original article stated that the 3rd Infantry Division served at Anzio for just under 4 months, whereas it has now been corrected to just over 4 months. The first elements arrived at Anzio on January 22 and the breakout that the 3rd ID spearheaded occurred on May 23rd.

Also, it mentions that the breakout was Operation Diadem. More accurately it should be stated that the breakout was Operation Buffalo, which was the code name for the attack towards Cisterna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.18.190 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3rd_Infantry_Division_(United_States)&oldid=1217624877"