Talk:101st Airborne Division/Archive 1

101st Division Special Troops Battalion
Since it already had an article of its own, I went ahead and linked to it from the Current Structure section. Spartan198 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

deepest combat air assault into enemy territory in the history of the world

 * In January 1991, the 101st once again had its "Rendezvous with Destiny" in Iraq during the deepest combat air assault into enemy territory in the history of the world. The 101st sustained no soldiers killed in action during the 100-hour war and captured thousands of enemy prisoners of war.

There seem to be a number of similar sources eg http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/101abn.htm which says:
 * In August, 1990 the Iraqi Army invaded Kuwait. The US responded by deploying troops to Saudi Arabia. with one the first units to deploy being the 101st. The division fired the first shots of "Desert Storm" by taking out Iraqi radar sites on 17 January 1991. After the ground war began, the 101st was ordered to go deep into Iraq and set up a base of operations for further attacks. During the ground war phase of "Desert Storm," the 101st made the longest and largest Air Assault in history. More than 2,000 men, 50 transport vehicles, artillery, and tons of fuel and ammunition were airlifted 50 miles into Iraq. Units from the division Air Assaulted into Iraq and set up Forward Operation Base Cobra. Land vehicles took another 2,000 troops into Iraqi territory west of Kuwait to allow U.S. Armored Forces unrestricted access to Iraq.

BUT the largest air assult in history was Operation Varsity in support the the River Rhine crossing on 24 March 1945. It involved nearly as many airtransports as the 1991 airlift did men!

I am not sure which was the deepest penetration, but it almost certainly the second Chindits expedition (Operation Thursday) in early 1944. It involved more than 10,000 and was probably the longest duration for such mission as well.

In Operation Market Garden the US airborne forces, in which the 101st took the Grave Bridge, which in 1944 was Europe's longest bridge, were probably more numerous than the 1991 air-assult and there were also were also many British and Polish Airborne troops on the same operation. PBS 20:44, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, there's a difference between air assault and airborne. The 101st, is mainly, Air Assault.  The main reason for calling it Airborne is historical.  In most official documents, it's called the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).  Most of the Division are not Airborne-qualified.  World War II may have seen the largest Airborne operations in history, the deepest penetration, but it's different from air-assault.  Basically, Airborne is jumping out of planes, Air Assault is fast-roping out of helicopters--mcornelius 30 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)


 * i would say air assault is the ability to quickly deploy with the use of aircraft, such as the british 16 air assault brigade with has infantry, engineers, artillery, light tank support, apache attack helis, harrier ground attack aircraft, and transport helis and planes. although only the infantry The Parachute Regiment, and artillery have their para wings.

Hrm
Unless I'm mistaking the 101st for another Division, weren't they "known" for shaving their hair into faux mohawks before their operations or something? I have a horrible memory, but hopefully one of you knows what I'm referring to, and can add it to the article if possible Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That was only a handful of paratroopers that got a lot of press. See Mark Bando's Trigger Time website for details. Michael Dorosh 19:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Old Abe
Based on http://www.army.mil/CMH/matrix/101/101-Matrix.htm, I have updated the article on Old Abe to connect him to the shoulder patch. That site also refers to a history of the 101st division in World War I. I normally do not edit articles outside of the American Civil War space, so I will leave it to current Army editors to decide what to do about this. Hal Jespersen 15:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle honours
I added in other names of the somme offensive in 1918, as some readers may get confused with the 1916 offensive. yerkschmerk

On 11 August 2007 unknown contributor with IP address 84.83.154.127 added that the 101st Airborne received the Military Order of William in WW2. This is incorrect, see http://www.ww2awards.com/award/733/non and http://www.mindef.nl/binaries/Military%20Order%20of%20William_tcm15-63189.pdf. As a consequence this mistake has been corrected. Up to 31 May 2006 the 82nd US Airborne Division was the only foreign military unit that received the Order of William. Soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division were standing in the guard of honor during the Order of William ceremonies on 31 May 2006 when the Polish 1st Independent Parachute Brigade was awarded the Order of William for gallantry at Arnhem in 1944. Her Majesty Queen Beatrix welcomes in her speech representatives of the 82nd US Airborne Division, see: http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/content.jsp?objectid=16244. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurz (talk • contribs) 09:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

McAuliffe
Someone removed him from notable commanders. Why? Haber 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan?
There should be a mention of the 101st Airborne Division in Afghanistan, especially about Operation Anaconda. Signaleer 04:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, operations in Afghanistan were not taken on by the division as a whole, but rather by 3rd Brigade, attached to 10th Mountain. Comment should certainly be made on the article 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division...and if the article doesn't exist, someone should make it.  Heh.--SOCL 16:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * TF Rakkasan, 270 helicopters provided some of the first combat units into Afghanistan in 2002, including 101st CSG and 86th CSH (which fall under the 101st Airborne Division). I said the article should certainly include the operations in Afghanistan (plus Operation Anaconda).  There is clearly an article already on Operation Anaconda but there should be a mention about that in addition to the other operations the 101st conducted during their deployment. --Signaleer 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

More Information
After looking at the site, I feel that there should be a lot more information about the divisions participation in Vietnam, the 1991 Persian Gulf War and OIF I. --Signaleer 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
The infobox says at the bottom: 'Notable commanders 	MoscowSnow Maxwell Taylor' Is this vandalism? I know of no Moscow Snow in the 101st... Identity0 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Transfer of article
I propose this article be transferred to "101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)" from its current name ("101st Airborne Division"). This is obviously not a major change, but I believe it would more correctly represent the division's current role and history.--SOCL 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that jive with WPMILHIST's naming conventions? I know we were moving away from some of those paranthetical disambigs, but I don't know if this would count or not.  Perhaps raise it on the talk page of the Project? --ScreaminEagle 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a disambig if we move the article to 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) as that's the division's official designation, no longer simply "101st Airborne Division."--SOCL 23:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Image
Today's featured pic is off the 101st.



I'm not 100% on how to add pictures to articles, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I thought I would just post if here and see what you wanted to do with it. Shimaspawn 19:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
In the WWII section, someone replaced the name of the first commander, Major General William C. Lee, with Joe Nigger. I fixed it, but watch for it in the future. It is possible other vandalism has occured, but this is the one that I found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.33.185 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

We need to update the unit list
If you go to here http://www.campbell.army.mil/UnitMenus/default.aspx it seems that they re-did the whole division someone should update the sub-unit list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Synthe (talk • contribs) 01:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

inga, and now their first commander was General Darth Vader. You've got some vandalism in every paragraph at this point, and likely all from the same person. Based on how childish the edits are, I'd wager a 13 year old with a sense of humor that has yet to fully develope.

Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.96.202 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

citations?
I noticed the #Persian Gulf War section provided its own references section, but lacking any in-line citations. If someone could please make sense of it and sort things out, that'd be nice. And I also observed the succeeding sections have a strongs lacking of citations outright and I wouldn't be surprised if the article was written almost in two halves. Should we flag this otherwise nice article. Combined the recurring vandalism, should preventive measures be taken? - Alan --69.123.27.126 (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. This article could easily be a B class or even higher if Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines are met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

101st Historical Photo WWII 1945 France
There is a great historical photo of the first ever Division Presidential Award awarded to 101st ABN DIV in France, 1945.

It can be viewed online at:

http://501medmen.bizhosting.com/wwii.html

Guy C. Lamunyon Combat Medic 101 ABN DIV RVN 1971 Glamunyon@aol.com California, USA

71.134.32.191 (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Subdued Patch in Vietnam?
The article is pretty well spot on, except for the part about the 101st wearing a subdued patch in Vietnam. The 101st never wore a subdued patched at any point in its history until the BDU uniform appeared in the early 1980's. With the new BDU uniform, the Department of the Army mandated that ALL division patches be subdued.

Sometimes no patch was worn at all in Vietnam, because many times the uniforms we wore just came from the quartermaster laundry bag... you just found a shirt and pants that fit. The QM uniforms had no patches at all on them, but there were no subdued patches whenever you found them. I'm surprised no one has caught this yet, since a lot of guys served in the 101st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.226.236 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Mohawk
In the wikipedia article of Mohawk it mentions that the 101st Airborne Division, shaved their heads to a mohawk. I was wondering if someone could put a reference in there. Thanks --FailureAtDeath (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A question about the unit's Reactivation in 1957.
In the section about the reactivation in 1957, following WWII, how come 4 of the division's regiments (327,501,502 and 506) are all of the "1st Airborne Battle Group" and only one (the 187th) is a part of the "2nd Airborne Battle Group"?

The section mentions 5 battle groups - why are there only 2?

Are some of the regiments actually a part of a different battle group?

Or may be I'm just confused... Appreciate any help :) thanx צנטוריון (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In the late 1950s the Army did away with regiments and their subordinate battalions. Previously divisions would typically have three regiments and various supporting units. The new organization, known as the Pentomic concept, replaced three regiments with five battle groups per division, and each battle group had five companies. In order to perpetuate lineages and honors (L&H), the Army created the Combat Arms Regimental Systems (CARS). Using the 187th as an example, the L&H of Company A, 187th Airborne Infantry Regiment was perpetuated by HHC, 1st Airborne Battle Group, 187th Infantry; Company B, 187AIR was perpetuated by HHC, 2nd ABG, 187th Infantry. (The term "regiment" was no longer used.) Here are the officials L&Hs from the US Army Center of Military History:

1-187th http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0187in001bn.htm

2-187th http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0187in002bn.htm

Following the conversion to battle groups, regimental numbers could be found in different divisions because they no longer represented tactical organizations. That's how 1-187th went to the 11th Airborne Division and 2-187th was in the 101st.

In the early 1960s the Pentomic organization, seen as unworkable, was replaced by a new organization that featured three brigades per division and typically (but not always) three battalions per brigade. When this took place, the lineage of 1st ABG, 187th was reorganized and redesignated as 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry. Again, regimental numbers could be found in various brigades and divisions because they did not represent tactical organizations.

To answer the earlier question of why four regiments were under the 1st Airborne Battle Group and only one under the 2nd ABG, the answer is that there was no all-encompassing 1st ABG. This was simply a means of perpetuating lineages (in this case, Company A from various regiments). —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move article to 101st Airborne Division
Ktr101 has moved this article several times to remove the (United States) from the title of the article.


 * Against The unit might be the only "101st Airborne Division" with an article, but it is not the only 101st Division. As such, I believe the page needs the (United States) designation, as per all unit articles, to distinguish it from other divisions. - Ed! (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral to be honest, as I think this kind of thing is faily pathetic. Either way seems to be fine. Skinny87 (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Ed, not all unit articles have the country designator in the title.  I know it may seem like it, but they don't.  If you care to read the actual reasoning behind why we at the MHWP came up with the specific wording of the country designator guidelines, and the guidelines themselves, the only time a country designator is added is to avoid confusion.  For example, there are many, many Third Armies in this world.  To distinguish one Third Army from another the country designator is useful and indeed necessary.  But if you'll look at the entry for the United State's Third Army you'll see that it's titled differently, and that is because in the U.S. the armies automatically have "United States" within their official names.  Therefore, adding "United States" within parenthesis is redundant and unnecessary.  The official title is always preferred to one that unnecessarily includes a country designator simply for the benefit of conformity.  Conformity was not the main purpose behind the naming conventions, but rather disambiguity.


 * Also, take Delta Force. There is no country designator, and for good reason.  Because no other country on earth has a unit called Delta Force, or rather 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta.  It is unique to the United States.  No one's going to get confused there.  And this brings us to the 101st Airborne.  Yes, there are several 101st Divisions in the world and thus country designators are necessary to distinguish them.  However, there is only one 101st Airborne Division on earth.  There is no confusion, and if someone accidentally thinks the 101st Division they're looking for is in fact an airborne division, he or she will be quickly educated as to their folly when they read the first sentence.  Adding the country designator is completely unnecessary and redundant and is not the purpose of the MHWP Naming Conventions and why they were written in the first place.  So don't get too renaming-happy when the situation doesn't call for it.  I support taking out the (United States) designator as completely unnecessary.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral If we are considering removing "United States" from the title, we might as well consider renaming the article with its modern designation as an Air Assault unit. Or should the article be split between its primary ancestor unit (the Airborne Division) and its modern designation (Air Assault)? This has occurred with the 20th century 32nd Infantry Division (United States) and its modern successor, the 32nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States). The 101st Airborne is very notable on its own and perhaps deserves to be retained as a stand-alone article.  Comments? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Technically, it is now called the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) as Btphelps mentions. It will always retain its historic name, but now includes the air assault verbage. Wouldn't it solve the problem to merely refer to it as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark31 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That same question was brought up a couple of years ago and a defining answer was never found. I've posed the question to the MilHist talk page so we'll see what people have to say.  Personally, I'd much rather see (Air Assault) there than (United States), but I'll wait to see what the consensus is.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New Commander assigned
I'm not sure what the protocols are for this class of articles, but Maj. Gen. John F. Campbell (not this guy) was assigned to command the 101st Airborne on Friday. linky Tomertalk  06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The link that was put before is no longer able to be viewed, here is another link to the current CO of the 101st: i dont know if this helps out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.243.98 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo taken at 2030HRS (8:30p.m.)??
Was it really taken at this time? Because it really looks like daylight in the background. (Doesn't matter.. just wish i was at this momentous occasion!) ≈ Commit  charge
 * on June 5th in England the sun sets around 21:15 - so it's daylight for sure! see for details. --noclador (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Elite Squadron
I deleted the text reading "Two of the included battalions were the Screaming Eagles and the Red Elite Squadron. The Screaming Eagles disbanded after their leader, J. M. MacCarthy, was dropped in via CH-47 Chinook helicopter, and was counterattacked by a M-60 tank. A day after the attack he went MIA." This makes no sense whatsoever. Someone was pulling Wiki's leg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Transferred
"101st was transferred, less personnel and equipment, to Fort Campbell, Kentucky"

This may be a silly question, but if the division was transferred except for its personnel and equipment, what exactly was transferred? DJ Clayworth 14:41, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Is this unit still a paratroop unit or just air-mobile? Rmhermen 18:39, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * What tranfers when they transfer the flag of a unit is it's history (lineage and honors). Caisson 06 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the flags of the division and subordinate units moved from Fort Jackson, SC, to Fort Campbell, KY. The 101st at Fort Jackson was a non-Airborne training command with a completely different configuration from a combat division. At Fort Campbell the assets of the 187th and 508th Airborne Regimental Combat Teams were used to form up the reactivated division.


 * Air-mobile (now called Air Assault), but there are still some paratroop (Airborne) elements. The reason for calling it the 101st Airborne, is historical.--mcornelius 30 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)

The remaining jump slots exist in the two pathfinder companies (one per aviation brigade). Instructors at the Air Assault School are on jump status as well. There is nothing about their duties requiring jump status; rather, it is a bonus for being on the instructor staff. Supposedly they could be used to augment the pathfinders when the division deploys.

Airborne Divisions ?
Is there a list of all the Airborne Divisions? If there is a 101st, then are there a 1st through 100th? Kingturtle (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The only two currently active airborne units in the US Army are the 82d and the 101st, which is now actually an air assault division that maintains its original designation for historical/nostalgic purposes; the 82d is the only remaining true airborne division in the military.  FYI, in the history of the US, there have been only five airborne divisions: 11th, 13th, 17th, 82d, and 101st.--ScreaminEagle (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why weren't they the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th? What created this interesting numbering system? Kingturtle (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are already Army infantry divisions with 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, etc. designations. The only difference is whether these divisions are infantry, light infantry/mountain infantry, airborne/air assault, etc.  Regardless, they're all infantry divisions, just with different specialties.  They don't start over with the numbering, they just take the next available number to use, and airborne units are essentially infantry units who just throw themselves out of perfectly good aircraft.  Now, the numbers do start over for things like armored divisions, air divisions, cavalry divisions, mechinized divisions, etc. because those are in a different category altogether than the infantry units.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, these units originated as Infantry Divisions. They merely kept their numeric designation, because as stated, being a type of infantry division, they didn't warrant a different numeric, in U.S. Army practice of the time.  Ironically, current U.S. Army armored divisions are essentially mechanized infantry divisions, though prior to transformation from division-centric to modular BCT-centric structures and UEx/UEy Division/Corps structure, there were differences between mech and armored formations, in terms of the number balance (slant) of tanks and IFVs.Caisson 06 (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to compile a list of all the infantry divisions in numerical order. This may seem like a pointless exercise, but it will actually help me to better understand the history of the military. Is there a good source to help me do this? Kingturtle (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there's this to start with. You'll notice that infantry divisions that were disbanded or renamed later sometimes had their numbers reused in other infantry units as seen here.  And this points to how the structure will look in 2009.  I'm not certain if that's all you're looking for.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Band
The 101's band is mentioned on the 7-ball disambiguation page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
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!


 * http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-23 01:59:44, 404 Not Found
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-31 21:34:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
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!


 * http://www.nifc.gov/pres_visit/military.html
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-23 01:59:44, 404 Not Found
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-31 21:34:05, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
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!


 * http://icasualties.org/oif/Divisions.aspx
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-23 01:59:44, 404 Not Found
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-31 21:34:31, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4
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!


 * http://fortcampbellcourier.com/articles/2007/07/19/news/news3.txt
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-23 01:59:49, 415 Unsupported Media Type
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-31 21:34:55, 415 Unsupported Media Type

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5
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!


 * http://www.campbell.army.mil/units/AAS/PDT/Pages/PDT.aspx
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-23 01:59:45, 404 Not Found
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-31 21:35:21, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Archive in place for this one. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC).

Dead link 6
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!


 * http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Avn/101AviationRegiment.htm
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-23 01:59:44, 404 Not Found
 * In 101st Airborne Division on 2011-05-31 21:35:47, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Subdued Uniform Patch
The 101st never wore a subdued "Screaming Eagle" patch in Vietnam. I've seen this misinformation stated on a number of occasions. Some units, especially late in the War sometimes didn't wear a patch at all. This happened if you wore the uniforms delivered regularly by Quartermaster Laundry. You just dug around in the bag until you found a top and bottom your size. These uniforms had absolutely nothing sewed on the shirts. The main article even has a photo of a infantryman returning from a night ambush whose shirt has no patch... I know where he got that shirt!

Part of the confusion may have been started by the fact that subdued 101st patches did exist. These were worn on the right sleeve of non-Class A uniforms IF the wearer had been a member of the Division overseas during a combat period. During the 70's and 80's, a member of the 101st would wear the full color patch on his left sleeve, and if he had been with the Division in Vietnam he wore the subdued patch simultaneously on the right sleeve.

But, all active members of the Division have always worn the full color patch on the left sleeve until all colored division patches were banned on the battle uniform sometime in the 90's. The 101st wore the colored patch even during those post-Vietnam decades when most/all other Army divisions were required to wear subdued patches. The 101st has always been to the Army what the Marines are to the Department of Defense... a bit on the renegade side who march to their own tune.

I don't know that the misinformation is particularly important, but do know that it may not be possible to correct it. I just know that it is incorrect. Look at all left sleeve photos of 101st members prior to the 1990's Army policy change, Vietnam or elsewhere. The patches are always full color. If the photo was taken in Vietnam, the uniform may not even have a patch. But, you will never see a subdued 101st patch on any left sleeve prior to the policy change which occurred long after Vietnam.

98.193.174.197 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

1945?
The article doesn't even seem to mention the division actions in 1945. The description ends with Bastogne, and resumes with the post-war chapter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Army, Sgt. 1st Class Greg Robinson, an amputee, 34, of the 101st Airborne Division, graduated from the 10-day Sabalauski Air Assault School on Monday, April 29, 2013, and is the first amputee to have completed the course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmMarroll (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on 101st Airborne Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ic2nmvd_mbYYlD_pqRf5ue0vgVMQ?docId=2c3c9238014a4f7aabf7975d65d73970
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110610160728/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Heraldry/ArmyDUISSICOA/ArmyHeraldryUnit.aspx?u=5754 to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Heraldry/ArmyDUISSICOA/ArmyHeraldryUnit.aspx?u=5754

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of defense provides insights into ISIL fight, 101st mission
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. - U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter visited 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) Soldiers at Fort Campbell. Jan. 13, 2016. Carter wanted to speak to 101st Airborne Division Soldiers directly prior to their upcoming deployment in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, in which they will work to train, advise and assist the Iraqi army to defeat the ISIL. http://www.army.mil/article/160958/Secretary_of_defense_provides_insights_into_ISIL_fight__101st_mission/
 * --jwalling (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 1
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 101st Airborne Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.506infantry.org/hisassault/hisassaultphoto08.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Airborne vs. Air Mobile vs. Air Assault
I think more information on the differences between Airborne / Air Mobile / Air Assault would be appreciated by everyone. 209.179.11.111 (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

See the following articles for detailed descriptions: Airborne forces, Air assault, Light infantry. CobraDragoon (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on 101st Airborne Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070112060156/http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=18 to http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=18


 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102205412/http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16635coll16/id/3571 to http://cdm16635.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16635coll16/id/3571

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on 101st 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/spdes-123-ra_ar.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1753.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/Bulge/kinnard.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608001609/http://www.nifc.gov/pres_visit/military.html to http://www.nifc.gov/pres_visit/military.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

News reporting
I just would like to remind editors that we're here to write an encyclopedia, not merely report what's being said in the news, per WP:NOTNEWS. Some additions to "2016 Iraq" and other areas make me wonder about their WP:WEIGHT. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well Stevie that is legit and worthy information. The 101st is the most busy unit in the U.S. Army.Fury 1991 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991
 * Only reliably sourced information applied with proper WP:WEIGHT informs us of this, not our personal opinions. I stand by what I said as it is what Wikipedia requires.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 19:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Stevie most of those sources are from mainstream newspapers which fall under those guidelines.Fury 1991 (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

Using IMDB as Reference Sources
I understand that citing IMDB as a reference source raises many questions under Identifying_reliable_sources. However, under the 'Popular Culture' section of this particular entity, I have not been able to find quality reference sources apart from IMDB. Would it be okay for me to use these here? For example, please have a look at the following:
 * Battleground (1949 Film) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041163/
 * Screaming Eagles (1956 Film) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049728/

Would really appreciate it if someone could help me out with this. Honestly, the instructions on the Citing IMDb page were not so clear for me to understand whether the usage of these URLs as references was appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingBlueDream (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Having absolutely no editorial oversight and vetting, sites such as IMDB are not reliable and cannot be used as a reference/source in the article body. If there is not a notable source for inclusion in that section, that item should be removed per the Manual of Style, specifically regarding original research and reliable sources. You'll find most of the "Pop culture" sections are magnets for trivia and the trivial, which have no place in an encyclopedic article. It's a constant battle to keep such sections gleaned to the notable inclusions. I actually removed a bunch of this trivial dreck a while ago, but it was reverted back by with no improvements whatsoever.
 * Hope that helps. GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 15:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC).