Jump to content

Talk:100th Infantry Battalion

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

Only infantry unit in the U.S. Army Reserve?

[edit]

I know nothing about the 100th Infantry Battalion and darn little about the US Army Reserve. Nonetheless, I find the statement "The 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry is the only infantry unit in the U.S. Army Reserve" difficult to believe. Is there a word missing? Please educate me. --Richard 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that most of the Infantry units have been allocated between the Regular Army and the National Guard, but I share your acepticism. I'll do some checking for myself. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand now. I think the point is that the 100th Infantry Battalion is the last remaining "pure infantry" unit; that is, it is "infantry" as opposed to "mechanized infantry". Can anybody confirm this?
If I'm right, I'd be interested in knowing why this is true. What's the value of an "infantry" unit that is not mechanized?
--Richard 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch all of the above. I got it wrong. The distinction being made is "combat" vs. "combat support" and "combat service support". But, the question still remains... why? Why is this one unit the only combat unit in the USAR? My guess is that it is a special dispensation granted to the unit due to its extraordinary distinction for valor in WWII. However, that is pure speculation. If my speculation is on the money, it should definitely be included in this article. Can anybody help?

--Richard 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that currently there are few Infantry units in the Army Reserve - The National Guard has the majority of Infantry units NOT in the Regular Army - and there haven't been any "Straight Leg" (Units that walk most everywhere they go) Infantry units in the Army since the days of Vietnam. All Infantry Units today are either Airborne, Air Assault, Mechanized, Stryker, or a combination of all of the above. SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the unit has elements from American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas that would be NG but since there is no NG in these jurisdictions they are USAR instead.

If you read Maneuver and Firepower (http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm), Department of the Army made a decision to put all Combat Arms (artillery, armor, cavalry, infantry) in the National Guard. This is what also killed the Reserve Special Forces units. The 100/442d is an exception due to the unit's war record and the strength of the Hawaiian Congressional delegation. Samoa does have a National guard presence (http://www.samoanewsonline.com/viewstory.php?storyid=10891). The 100/442d is the LAST Infantry unit of any type in the Army Reserve since the 157th, 187th , and 205th Infnatry Brigades (USAR) inactivated in the mid-1990s. The AC/RC (active component & reserve compent)units of First Army are training regiments, not deployable units (although the members can deploy) and do not count as "Infnatry" units. The 100/442d is currently organized under the same IBCT organization as the National Guard and Regular Army Infantry units. The IBCT has replaced the Light, Airborne, and Air Assault organzations.Mikeofv (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

[edit]

I've made some substantial edits to reduce the amount of "peacock language" and other words to watch in the article. I think more needs to be done in order to ensure we have an article that reflects the proud history of the unit.Ocalafla (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 100th Infantry Battalion (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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 100th Infantry Battalion (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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Melvin Finch: new article?

[edit]

Zolotow, Maurice (1945-11-10). "The Man who Astonished Hattiesburg". The Saturday Evening Post.

Earl Melvin Finch (December 5, 1915 - August 25, 1965): The One Man U.S.O.
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:100th_Infantry_Battalion&oldid=1259575843"