Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Army Reserve Infantry Unit's

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

  • patches
    started a topic U.S. Army Reserve Infantry Unit's

    U.S. Army Reserve Infantry Unit's

    I would like to know the order of battle of the four u.s. army reserve infantry brigade's during the vietnam war from 1963 on. Can't find any thing on these unit's really. I just go round and round trying to google the info of these unit,s. They are are the 157th inf bde, 187th inf bde, 191st inf bde, and the 205th inf bde.

  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Yes, that looks familiar. I knew that one of the Infantry Battalions was now from Michigan. Still this proves my point of the 32nd INFBDE of being changed from what it used to be. Before WWII there were two Michigan INFREG and two from Wisconsin. The 32nd INFDIV got a Michigan INFREG to fill it out after WWII. The other Michigan Infantry Regiment was part of the 38th INFDIV.

    Pruitt
    The 32nd Division (ex 11th Division) was manned by the Michigan and Wisconsin National Guard. When the division went to a square division in 1917, it had two regiments of infantry from both states. In WWII the division was triangularized the 125th Infantry from Michigan became independent. After WWII, the guard was expanded adding the 43rd to 50th Infantry Divisions, and Michigan's 126th Infantry was pulled from the 32nd (along with other various units from MI) and with the 125th formed the basis of the new 46th Infantry Division, which was entirely from Michigan (a third regiment, the 225th Infantry, was raised at this time). In the late fifties the division went to the Pentomic organization, and the ROAD there were two brigades (I think, not sure of the third). In the late 60's reduction of the Guard by MacNamara, the division was inactivated except the 2nd Brigade, which became the 46th Brigade, and attached to the 38th Infantry Division (Indiana NG). There it served until 2006 or so time frame when under the downsizing of the Guard under Rumsfeld, the 46th Brigade was inactivated as well as an infantry and tank battalion with the two remaining battalions attached to the 37th Infantry Brigade from Ohio. The 1-125th still remains with the 37th, while last year the 1-126th Cavalry (RSTA) was attached to the 32nd Infantry Brigade.

    On a personal note, I belong to a Civil War "Reenactment/Gun club that traditionally holds a long range historic artillery competition at Camp Grayling. However this year we were bumped, because of a massive increase in the training schedule. It looks like out slot was taken by the 32nd Brigade which scheduled a very large brigade sized exercise for the past few weeks.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • 82redleg
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Yes, that looks familiar. I knew that one of the Infantry Battalions was now from Michigan. Still this proves my point of the 32nd INFBDE of being changed from what it used to be. Before WWII there were two Michigan INFREG and two from Wisconsin. The 32nd INFDIV got a Michigan INFREG to fill it out after WWII. The other Michigan Infantry Regiment was part of the 38th INFDIV.
    Before WWII, we had square divisions with four regiments, two in each of two brigades: the 63rd Infantry Brigade had 125th and 126th Infantry in th MIARNG; the 64th Infantry Brigade had the 127th and 128th Infantry in the WIARNG. Typically, all units were formed, but were significantly under strength when mobilized in 1940 and had to be filled with draftees.

    After WWII, we kept a very large force structure of both ARNG and Organized Reserve (later Army Reserve) divisions, even though they were again typically far less than full strength.

    The division was reduced to a separate brigade in 1967, as part of a restructuring of the reserve components, although it retained the divisional number and lineage. It was mechanized in 1971, became a divisional brigade of the 34th ID (MNARNG) in 1997, and once again separate in 2001. I'm not clear what point you're trying to make, other than structures routinely change

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Notice that an extra Artillery Battalion is attached to a Wyoming Artillery Brigade?
    Not attached, aligned. There are 8 FA BDEs among the 50 states. The various non-BCT cannon and rocket battalions (something like 25 or 30 battalions) from across significantly more states are all aligned against one of the 8, but they also have a state command relationship with either their state HQs or a brigade in their state, and could deploy with any number of active or reserve HQs

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    It does no good to try to keep up with the exact composition anymore.

    Pruitt
    I'm not sure that's any more true today than any other time in history- the only constant is change.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Yes, that looks familiar. I knew that one of the Infantry Battalions was now from Michigan. Still this proves my point of the 32nd INFBDE of being changed from what it used to be. Before WWII there were two Michigan INFREG and two from Wisconsin. The 32nd INFDIV got a Michigan INFREG to fill it out after WWII. The other Michigan Infantry Regiment was part of the 38th INFDIV.

    Notice that an extra Artillery Battalion is attached to a Wyoming Artillery Brigade?

    It does no good to try to keep up with the exact composition anymore.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • 82redleg
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Yeah, John Fogerty was in the Reserve. Speaking about the 32nd, It now has declined to a Brigade with maybe two Infantry Battalions from Wisconsin. There was once an Armor Battalion, two Mechanized Infantry and a TOW Antitank Battalion there. First they disbanded the ITOW units and then they changed the Heavy units into Light Infantry. No telling what the Wisconsin Guard looks like today.

    Pruitt
    It's not hard to figure out what is in the WIARNG. The Wisconsin Dept of Military Affairs website lists it out in pretty good detail:

    https://dma.wi.gov/DMA/about/ng/arng

    32nd IBCT
    -HHC, BCT
    -1-120th FA
    -3-126th IN (from MIARNG)
    -2-127th IN
    -1-128th IN
    -132nd BSB
    -173rd EN
    -1-105th CAV

    157th Maneuver Enhacement Brigade
    -HHC, BDE
    -1-121st FA (HIMARS) assigned for state command, also aligned to 115th FA BDE (WYARNG)
    -257th BSB
    -32nd MP Co
    -357th Signal Co
    -457th Chemical Co
    -724th EN

    The 64th Troop Command also contains a number of units, at least a combat sustainment support battalion and an aviation battalion. Both are likely aligned to brigades in other states, and under state command of the troop command. There are some other units in th 64th that may be deplorable, but I'm not sure which are state admin units and which are federally recognized troop basis units.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Yeah, John Fogerty was in the Reserve. Speaking about the 32nd, It now has declined to a Brigade with maybe two Infantry Battalions from Wisconsin. There was once an Armor Battalion, two Mechanized Infantry and a TOW Antitank Battalion there. First they disbanded the ITOW units and then they changed the Heavy units into Light Infantry. No telling what the Wisconsin Guard looks like today.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Merkava188
    replied
    Wasn't John Fogerty of CCR in the Army Reserves at one time?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    The 100th Training Division would have been used to train Recruits. The men normally assigned to these duties would have been sent to under strength units. The 32nd Infantry was mainly from Wisconsin and the 49th Armor was from Texas. I assume they would have been slated for Germany after they had trained up.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • 82redleg
    replied
    Originally posted by Merkava188 View Post
    Wasn't there a couple of Reserve units called for the Berlin crisis in 61 and then for the Cuban Missile crisis and the Pueblo incident?
    Wilson mentions the 100th Training Division at Fort Chafee, and two ARNG divisions (32nd Infantry and 49th Armored), and says that the total of USAR and ARNG activated was 113,254, but doesn't mention and USAR combat units specifically.

    Leave a comment:


  • Merkava188
    replied
    Wasn't there a couple of Reserve units called for the Berlin crisis in 61 and then for the Cuban Missile crisis and the Pueblo incident?

    Leave a comment:


  • 82redleg
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    I am reading your posts and they say one thing. You read mine and make assumptions. The post I made about support units was supposed to be read as before WWI. You read it to include the interwar years. The three new divisions were largely taken out of the divisions that were formed for WWI. To get the new divisions the Army had to create some Guard units that either formed parts of other units or were created for the new divisions. It is not my fault what you see as "blather" or irrelevant.
    I'm not sure how you can assert that you were talking about before WWI, when the post clearly states "Before WWII..." I'm not reading it to include the interwar, you just wrote false information, and now you're throwing irrelevant information out there to obfuscate it.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Dismounted Cavalry is still Cavalry. It is not Infantry. The "dismounted" Cavalry was given special TOE's but still had fewer Riflemen and Heavy Weapons compared to Infantry. Horse Cavalry continued to the end of the war even if they only did parades or participate at Fort Benning at the Infantry School. The Cavalry School was at Fort Riley.
    I never said that it wasn't. You said wondered if the poor quality of ARNG mounts was a secondary reason that ARNG cavalry was converted. I said that it wasn't, that the US (and everyone else that could afford it, which in practice meant some US allies) was mechanizing everything. The cavalry wasn't converted because of poor quality horses, the horses were poor quality because mechanization was taking over.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    The supply of Horses and Mules in 1940 was a concern for the Army. Several of the personal histories I have read on Cavalry Officers in WWII mention the lack of qualified mounts in the National Guards. It seems the Guard allowed inferior mounts before the war and the War Department did not agree. You might benefit from reading the histories of the Texas National Guard, the South Dakota National Guard and the 112th and 124th Cavalry Regiments. Armor Magazine also has occasional articles on the interwar Army of the 30's.
    Only in the old guard that was hanging on to horse-mobile formations. The sane leaders were pushing mechanization as fast as they could afford to develop the material. There's a reason that the US Army was still using horses in 1940, and effectively wasn't (outside of some ceremonial units, etc) in 1944. And it wasn't because of poor quality horses.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Did you read this reply more easily? You may have to go up and down to your quoted reply to keep track of my answers. You see I do read your posts..
    I read your posts, too, even though they often contain more noise than content.

    If you copy the brackets [] with QUOTE=... (where ... is a username and then some numbers), and then put brackets with /quote inside after the paragraph or idea you are responding to, it makes it very clear in the post what you are quoting, and what you are adding. I thought you've done that before, but I don't seen it immediately in this thread, so I'll assume that you really don't know how, and aren't just being obnoxiously passive aggressive.

    Leave a comment:


  • shrike6
    replied
    Originally posted by 82redleg View Post
    Field Artillery is a combat arms branch.

    2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery, KYARNG, served in Vietnam
    https://kynghistory.ky.gov/Our-Histo...etnam-War.aspx

    3rd Battalion, 197th Field Artillery, NHARNG, served in Vietnam
    http://digitaledition.qwinc.com/arti...0/article.html

    There may have been others, but I know of these two.
    Interesting to know, if it comes again somewhere else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Originally posted by 82redleg View Post
    I don't know why you've started responding inside the quotes, but it is making it look like I've said the things that you are saying, which is kind of sketchy.



    As usual, you're obfuscating with a bunch of irrelevant data, and changing the argument. You originally claimed that the ARNG didn't have support units before WWII. I corrected that, pointing out that the ARNG had fully formed, if understrength, divisions between WWI and WWII, and now you blather on a bunch of irrelevant factoids about the formation of divisions between the wars.





    Once again, none of this has to do with the false assertion that you originally made, about the alleged poor quality of ARNG horses being "a lesser reason" to dismount those units. First, the ARNG units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI were dismounted, and second, pretty much all, if not all, cavalry that was employed was dismounted or mechanized. It didn't have to do with the quality of the horses, it had to do with the fact that horse cavalry was outmoded, and everyone that could afford to was going 100% mechanized.



    And again, what does this have to do with anything? The discussion was about which ARNG combat units deployed to Vietnam. You posted that you thought the INARNG sent a battalion, possibly an airborne one. I clarified that it was a Ranger company, and the other combat units sent were some field artillery battalions. What does TXARNG airborne, armored, and armored cavalry have to do with that?
    I am reading your posts and they say one thing. You read mine and make assumptions. The post I made about support units was supposed to be read as before WWI. You read it to include the interwar years. The three new divisions were largely taken out of the divisions that were formed for WWI. To get the new divisions the Army had to create some Guard units that either formed parts of other units or were created for the new divisions. It is not my fault what you see as "blather" or irrelevant.

    Dismounted Cavalry is still Cavalry. It is not Infantry. The "dismounted" Cavalry was given special TOE's but still had fewer Riflemen and Heavy Weapons compared to Infantry. Horse Cavalry continued to the end of the war even if they only did parades or participate at Fort Benning at the Infantry School. The Cavalry School was at Fort Riley.

    The supply of Horses and Mules in 1940 was a concern for the Army. Several of the personal histories I have read on Cavalry Officers in WWII mention the lack of qualified mounts in the National Guards. It seems the Guard allowed inferior mounts before the war and the War Department did not agree. You might benefit from reading the histories of the Texas National Guard, the South Dakota National Guard and the 112th and 124th Cavalry Regiments. Armor Magazine also has occasional articles on the interwar Army of the 30's.

    Did you read this reply more easily? You may have to go up and down to your quoted reply to keep track of my answers. You see I do read your posts..

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • 82redleg
    replied
    I don't know why you've started responding inside the quotes, but it is making it look like I've said the things that you are saying, which is kind of sketchy.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    In 1917 not all states had Divisional HQ's and support units like Quartermasters. Many did have Medical units and Ammo Trains. Between the wars the various states kept alive the support units they had been converted to for WW I. Indeed there were several more divisions formed between the wars like the 43rd, 44th and 45th Divisions. The 42nd Rainbow was not kept alive. The 42nd INFDIV in WWII was formed out of non-Guard units. The 39th Division was broken up and never saw service in WW II. I don't know why. Its Infantry and Artillery units did see service.
    As usual, you're obfuscating with a bunch of irrelevant data, and changing the argument. You originally claimed that the ARNG didn't have support units before WWII. I corrected that, pointing out that the ARNG had fully formed, if understrength, divisions between WWI and WWII, and now you blather on a bunch of irrelevant factoids about the formation of divisions between the wars.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    ...
    Before WW II the Guard was composed of many understrength combat units. This was not seen as a problem because these units would recruit back up to strength and train before seeing action. Any equipment needed would be furnished by the Feds. Most states could field at least a Regiment sized combat unit. Then they would add in heavy stuff like Artillery. Only the large urban states like New York or Pennsylvania would set up Ordinance or Quartermaster units.

    After WW II it was seen that some combat support units were needed and they were added. ...
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    There were several Guard Cavalry units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI. Off the top of my head it was the 112th and 124th Cavalry, all from Texas. Cavalry Battalions were reduced in strength in the 20's (basically losing one Troop per Squadron) and never got them back. This is why a Cavalry unit could not replace an Infantry unit in the line. The US Army did keep Horse Cavalry alive until late in WW II. Several units never left the CONUS or were used for ceremonial purposes. Horses are expensive and require specialist medical care. Until well into the 30's forage costs were greater than gasoline costs.
    Once again, none of this has to do with the false assertion that you originally made, about the alleged poor quality of ARNG horses being "a lesser reason" to dismount those units. First, the ARNG units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI were dismounted, and second, pretty much all, if not all, cavalry that was employed was dismounted or mechanized. It didn't have to do with the quality of the horses, it had to do with the fact that horse cavalry was outmoded, and everyone that could afford to was going 100% mechanized.

    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    The Texas Guard did have some Airborne units, but they did not see service. The Texas Guard has seen the Airborne units revive a time or two during reorganizations of the troops. Once the Texas Guard had an Armor Division (49th?, WWII size with three Infantry and three armor battalions) and an Airborne Brigade (36th?). The Texas Guard also once had an Armored Cavalry unit in the Dallas Metro (I saw it near the Red Bird Mall.
    And again, what does this have to do with anything? The discussion was about which ARNG combat units deployed to Vietnam. You posted that you thought the INARNG sent a battalion, possibly an airborne one. I clarified that it was a Ranger company, and the other combat units sent were some field artillery battalions. What does TXARNG airborne, armored, and armored cavalry have to do with that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Originally posted by 82redleg View Post
    The part about understrength combat units applies to both wars. The following parts about division headquarters and Ordnance and Quartermaster units does not- the Guard had fully formed and organized divisions between WW1 and WW2.

    *In 1917 not all states had Divisional HQ's and support units like Quartermasters. Many did have Medical units and Ammo Trains. Between the wars the various states kept alive the support units they had been converted to for WW I. Indeed there were several more divisions formed between the wars like the 43rd, 44th and 45th Divisions. The 42nd Rainbow was not kept alive. The 42nd INFDIV in WWII was formed out of non-Guard units. The 39th Division was broken up and never saw service in WW II. I don't know why. Its Infantry and Artillery units did see service.


    Like the Regular Army Cavalry units (which were dismounted and employed as infantry), ARNG Cavalry was converted because there was not a requirement for Cavalry- certainly not for horse Cavalry. The lack of suitable mounts was not a "lesser reason" for anything.

    *There were several Guard Cavalry units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI. Off the top of my head it was the 112th and 124th Cavalry, all from Texas. Cavalry Battalions were reduced in strength in the 20's (basically losing one Troop per Squadron) and never got them back. This is why a Cavalry unit could not replace an Infantry unit in the line. The US Army did keep Horse Cavalry alive until late in WW II. Several units never left the CONUS or were used for ceremonial purposes. Horses are expensive and require specialist medical care. Until well into the 30's forage costs were greater than gasoline costs.


    Haven't read it all yet, but this monograph looks interesting and relevant.
    www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521559

    The Indiana ARNG deployed Company D (Ranger), 151st Infantry. I believe that the only formed ARNG battalions that deployed were a couple of Field Artillery battalions, but can't reference that right now. Certainly no ARNG brigades or divisions deployed to Vietnam, although some were mobilized as you pointed out.

    * The Texas Guard did have some Airborne units, but they did not see service. The Texas Guard has seen the Airborne units revive a time or two during reorganizations of the troops. Once the Texas Guard had an Armor Division (49th?, WWII size with three Infantry and three armor battalions) and an Airborne Brigade (36th?). The Texas Guard also once had an Armored Cavalry unit in the Dallas Metro (I saw it near the Red Bird Mall.
    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X