Talk:Exercise Reforger

Deleted Text

 * Various combat and support units were involved. Approximately 100,000 troops and dependents were withdrawn from units in Germany and reassigned to various sites in the continental US.


 * The 30th Medical Battalion was one of those support units. One company of that battalion was the 595th Medical Clearing Company, moved from Crailsheim to Ft. Devens, Mass. This unit was airlifted from Munich International Airport in May or June of 1968 by the USAF. Married troops and dependents flew commercial jets to their destinations while other troops were flown back to the US via a C-141 to McGuire AFB and bussed to Ft. Devens.


 * All vehicles, tents, and assigned medical equipment was brought to full strength as assigned. A level 2 priority was assigned for back-ordered equipment and vehicles.  Items that had been on order for years was finally delivered and immediately turned in for storage.  Level 2 priority was said to be a combat level priority. (Spc 5 Bill Thomas(bfthomas@alltel.net)

I deleted the above as unencyclopedic. It seems to be a personal story and a personal e-mail address. Paul, in Saudi 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I remember some more detailed things on one of the earlier reforgers like that, it was a pretty big deal, but that one does not seem to do it as well.

I can research and better expand the REFORGER entry, I just was flipping through and noticed that wording that I knew was incomplete since I was stationed in Germany and involved in the exercises at the time, participating in REFORGER 88, 90 and Caravan Gaurd 88 and 89. REFORGER is the Forces Return exercise, and CG is a practice of what occurs prior to REFORGER with native units only. Reforger also included Canadian forces(4 CMBG) and german troops.
 * True. I was in REFORGER 79 & 81. I worked for NATO Central Army Group (CENTAG) in the first one and was a liaison to the 5th Panzer Division in the last one. The 4th CMBG was always one of the stars every year. The NATO allies should be recorded here as well. Not listing them misses a lot of the interoperability that was a key to the exercise. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)