Talk:37th Armor Regiment

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Large Article, Should we split?[edit]

This article is ~30KB, and is only going to get much longer. I think maybe we should summarize the regiment's WWII history here, and move the bulk of is to a new article like "US 37th Armor Regiment in WWII". Your thoughts? Marktaff 23:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are this article degenerates into a real mess towards the end--lifts without editing, the same material posted twice within a paragraph of each other but in different sections, edit sections all over the place, unnecessary personally comments amid obvious transfers...too much to do right now, I'll try edits later.--Buckboard 08:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree it gets messy towards the end, as of late. I find that some editors are trying to overemphasize the importance of their own little section. Full Disclosure: I served with 4-37 AR in ODS. I will fix it. Marktaff 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the fact that it's a large article. The 37th Armor is one of the most storied and decorated armor units in the U.S.Army - I don't see a need to break up the page - it's nice to see all the history in one place. Btw-I recently changed/added the 1-37 Desert Storm history, the bulk of which can be found in a US Army War College paper written by my former battalion commander, LTC Edward L. Dyer. It is posted in the unit history project section of www.1-37armor.net JDinRI 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to the creator of the page. I am an armor officer and was looking for some information on my old unit (1-37 and 4-67 Armor BN's), and need to correct a comment on the picture of the M1A1 Heavy in the upper right corner of the page. The bumper number A-65 does not refer to the 65th tank in the company or battalion. It is a representation of the company, the platoon, and the tank itself. "A" refers to Charlie Company (1st Company in the Battalion), "6" refers to the HQ platoon, and "5" refers to the executive officer's tank (since all executive officers are refered to as "5's" over the radio). So you get: "A-65", the executive officer's tank in the HQ platoon of A Company.

Task Force Baum is a well-documented enough event to warrant making it into its own article, in my opinion. --WTStoffs

page move[edit]

I moved the page to U.S. 37th Armor Regiment because the other articles about U.S. military units have "U.S." and not US.--Kross | Talk 11:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving battalion blurbs[edit]

This article is about the *entire* regiment, not just the two currently active battalions. Please put battalion-specific stuff in the existing sections, not at the top of the page. Thanks. Marktaff 23:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature vs. Article Names[edit]

On all articles listing US units, the article name invariably says "U.S. xxth Armor Regiment", "xxd Cavalry Regiment", or "xxrd Infantry Regiment". The word Regiment is in error and superfluous in all of these. The explanation that it is a regiment is within the opening paragraph, but "Regiment" is not part of the name of the unit. I'd like to see all the article names standardized (I have no problem with the "U.S." pre-designator) to reflect the actual name by which the unit is known--changing it to the prejudices of others seems to defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. For example: Coldstream Guards. In the U.S. it's the same thing.--Buckboard 09:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The "U.S." string is required to distinguish between US units and units of other countries who would otherwise have the same designation. As for "Regiment", it is indeed a part of the unit's name--it is the noun that "37th" and "Armor" modify. That fact that a regiment is largely used for heraldic purposes, as opposed to maneuver units like a company or a brigade, doesn't change anything. I can't speak for the British Army units, but in the US, "Regiment" in indeed part of the name. Either that or all my old orders, medals, etc are all in error, (and by extention the US Institute of Heraldry, the organization responsible for such matters). While there is no 37th Armor Regiment maneuver unit, there *is* a 37th AR Regimental Commander, typically the Battalion Commander of the oldest currently active regimental battalion. That is probably the 1st Battalion commander, as of 2006, but don't hold me to that;-). Marktaff 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham A. Baum in the infobox[edit]

This is Abraham J. Baum, of the Task Force Baum who was an S-3 of the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion, so not really that notable with the regiment although he did command a few of the regiment's troops during that particular operation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]