Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stupid question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stupid question

    Does anyone know why the 82 airborne wore American flags on there arms and the 101st didnt?

  • #2
    Re: Stupid question

    Originally posted by foster
    Does anyone know why the 82 airborne wore American flags on there arms and the 101st didnt?
    Not a stupid question a valid one. :thumb:
    http://canadiangenealogyandresearch.ca

    Soviet and Canadian medal collector!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Stupid question

      Originally posted by foster
      Does anyone know why the 82 airborne wore American flags on there arms and the 101st didnt?
      I have no hard reason for this, but probably because the 82nd made jumps into Italy who would, concievably, been friendly to American troops and it became SOP.


      Again; this is just a thought of mine. I really don't know why.

      Cheers!


      Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

      "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

      What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

      Comment


      • #4
        I thought it had to do with the fact that they were called the " All American" division.

        Comment


        • #5
          The reasons above, and later those armbands became standard for all paratroopers.
          The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. -Carl Jung

          Hell is other people. -Jean-Paul Sarte

          Comment


          • #6
            Unit insignia and unit effectivness

            Four replies to this question but no real answer.
            I reckon it was because the 'ole 82nd were just more patriotic - never did completely trust that 101st bunch, too many liberal democrats!

            Seriously though and slightly off topic, it reminds me of something I read about Western unit (divisional / regimental / brigade) insignia many years ago. Can't find the reference now.
            Essentially the historian was arguing that in general, the more elaborate a unit's symbol or attached insignia was, the less effective it was as a fighting force.

            If I remember rightly he was talking about Panzer, Panzer Grenadier divisions both Wehrmacht and SS (all of which I consider 'Western') but he thought the principle could be widely applied.

            lodestar has spoken and a universe trembles.

            regards lodestar

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tiger1 View Post
              I thought it had to do with the fact that they were called the " All American" division.
              Ditto, same here.
              Youthful Exuberance Is No Match For Old Age And Treachery.

              Comment


              • #8
                Invasion Arm Flags

                Article on different US arm flags worn by airborne forces with who wore what when.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The flag was also handy for recognition purposes. Jumping into Sicily in the dark means you might run into a volatile/alarmed citizen with a lupara. The drawback is it also easily identifies you as a enemy to the German troops. I imagine that one division commander considered the pros and cons and decided the troops would wear them and the other decided against it.
                  Hyperwar: World War II on the World Wide Web
                  Hyperwar, Whats New
                  World War II Resources
                  The best place in the world to "work".

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HMS Jr. View Post
                    Ditto, same here.

                    I agree, too.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      lodestar posting again after a break (a fingernail needed attention)

                      Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                      Seriously though and slightly off topic, it reminds me of something I read about Western unit (divisional / regimental / brigade) insignia many years ago. Can't find the reference now.
                      Essentially the historian was arguing that in general, the more elaborate a unit's symbol or attached insignia was, the less effective it was as a fighting force.
                      Wonder if there may not be something to this.

                      Just to use U.S. Army examples:
                      Two of their best divisions, 1st Infantry ('Big Red One') and 10th (Mountain) Inf (regarded by some observers, including British ones as the best performing US major ground asset in the MTO/ETO, despite it's late appearance!) had very simple divisional insignia.

                      The 106th Inf on the other hand had quite an elaborate insignia.

                      I'm sure there are other examples (lodestar said, painting as he always does, with an incredibly broad brush, with not the slightest heed to facts or circumstances!).

                      lodestar was neither liked nor trusted. Not by those who raised him, those he grew up with and went to school with, those he worked with and associated with as an adult. Nor those who know him now.
                      One woman told him she felt uneasy around him because: 'Your eyes are the colour of dirty coins.'

                      Regards lodestar

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X