Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: bobtl%toolbox.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: ARMY UNIT DESIGNATIONS....... Message-ID: <10321@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 18 Oct 89 02:49:18 GMT References: <10147@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR Lines: 54 Approved: military@att.att.com From: bobtl%toolbox.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET Most often there is a historical reason for army unit designations. It is not often obvious, or even rational, but there. Someone stated earlier that reserve (USAR and ANG) formations typically have larger numbers. For example, I am a reservist with the 104th Division. What happened to 102 and 103? Why is the 101st an active formation? My explanation is that in some pre-war or early war plans some staff officer determined that we would need X infantry divisions, say 110. Then each division was listed, and plans made as to where it would mobilize, train, how it would be used. So plans were made to mobilize the 101st somewhere in the east (Benning? I don't know), the 104th in Oregon, 102 and 103 somewhere else. But amazing fact, plans change. We found we needed another airborne division, 101 happened to be chosen for some reason. Maybe 102 and 103 could not be mobilized because there was no room to train those formations. The 104th was mobilized because NO one wanted to be in Camp Adair, OR :-). Plenty of room. The 101st was a crack unit with plenty of unit pride. We also needed airborne formations after the war, so it was retained on active status. The 104th was participated in several campaigns in Europe. It did not do brilliantly, but then again, it never had a general relieved, either. The army did need a reserve formation in the Northwest, the 104th had some ties to the area, so it was tagged for that. Maybe the 102 or 103 were actually mobilized, but for some reason they were not needed after the war. Again, I don't know. If anyone really wanted to know, the answer probably lies in some musty old army archive. Trivia question: Was there a division formation with a number larger than 104? Is there one now? Someone asked if unit numbering schemes can cause confusion. Absolutely. When I was in Germany in the 70's I was assistant ops officer with 2d Battalion, 75th Field Artillery. At the same time there was (still is) a Ranger unit, 2nd Battalion, 75th Infantry at Ft. Lewis WA. Occassionally a message would be sent to us saying "USS Charleston is ready to rendevous at Bremerton, WA to conduct amphibious training operations." (Please note that this is not a specific reference to any actual message, just an example of messages that occassionally were received). I always wondered what the rangers did with our messages "300 rounds of 8" howitzer ammunition is pre-positioned for your training exericse in Grafenwoehr" that were mistakenly sent to them. :-)