Talk:2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The title for this article is wrong - it should be U.S. 2nd Cavalry Regiment. 2d is not a proper numerical representation.

The US Army doesn't put the "n" in 2nd... nor do they put the "r" in 3rd- so you see 2d and 3d. Which, I assume, is why it keeps getting written that way here. Cheers --DarthBinky 04:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you source that? ExarPalantas (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We used 2nd Armored Cavalry, 2nd Armd Cav, (2A/C maybe), the 3 years I was there 1962-1965. I never saw 2d from us, VII Corps, or 7th Army.,----

Official Army designations do indeed use 2d and 3d; however, people tend to use 2nd and 3rd because that's what they're accustomed to using. For examples of official designations, see the US Army Center of Military History website at VilePig (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

article not quite clear[edit]

re the last sentence:In 2006 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, reflagged as the 2d Stryker Cavalry Regiment and restationed to Rose Barracks, Vilseck, Germany.: that sentence is not clear. so the 25th ID lost a brigade? what's that got to do the 2d ACR? Mct mht 05:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reflagging means that one unit has it's name and "history" changed to that of another. The original unit (in this case 2d ACR) is either deactivated or reflagged to something else. This time the 2d ACR was reflagged as a brigade of the 2d Infantry Division, and the 1st of the 25th was reflagged as the 2d SCR. Carnefice (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2009[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) — Title of article should be changed so that it is in accordance with the Wikipedia military unit naming convention. Only a fraction of the units exsistance has been as a "Stryker" unit. There is a naming convention in place, let's use it. Joshuashearn (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

While the 2d SCR uses the 2d Cavalry Regiment history, 2CR is not the proper or official name, 2SCR is. If you want to actually stick to the historical name of the unit, you'd have to change the title to 2d Dragoons (United States), which was the original name of the unit. It doesn't really matter what the regiment has been called in the past - it's called 2d Stryker Cavalry Regiment now. If they change it to 2d Stryker Dragoons sometime in the future, we'll change the page name to that. If anything, the name should be moved to 2d Stryker Cavalry Regiment since "2d" is the official and proper spelling used by the Army. Don't ask why, it just is. I can take the blame for the "2nd" in the current title - I did that editing and made that mistake. Additionally, the two most common short names for the regiment are 2SCR (the official abbreviation) or simply "Strykers," since it's the only Stryker unit in Europe, and that vehicle differentiates 2SCR from the neighboring heavy brigade (172d Infantry Brigade) at Grafenwoehr. If I seem a little zealous about this, it's because 2d SCR is my unit. Carnefice (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Carnefice - I admire your zealousness but bottom line is the unit is the 2d Cavalry Regiment. So when the Stryker is outdated and replace with whatever vehicle the Army decides, then we will again have to make this move? Whether they are on horses, tanks, or APCs (Strykers), they are the 2d Cavalry Regiment. Like you, I'm in the Army and I'm well aware of what the Army calls this unit. I also know something about naming conventions. Just saying.... I stand by my recommendation to move this article.Joshuashearn (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Current Structure" information contradiction[edit]

In the graphical representation of the structure, it seems that the Anti Armor, MI, Engineer, and Signal troops stand alone and do not fall under any of the squadrons. Yet right next to it on the written description of the structure, the troops belong to specific squadrons. Which one is it???--Shovonma17 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Philippines as an Engagement?[edit]

According to Sawicki's lineage book, the 2nd Cav does not have a campaign streamer for the Philippines. Although most active regiments did rotate through the Philippines prior to World War I, I'm not sure we should list it as an engagement if it doesn't line up with official records and campaign participation credit. Thoughts?Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the campaign streamers refer to periods of active combat when the US was subjugating the Filipinos (1898-1902), and that streamers are not awarded for periods of non-combat occupation.VilePig (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Haiti service[edit]

After six months in Haiti, 1st Squadron arrived to replace 3rd Squadron. 2nd Squadron replaced 3rd Squadron in October 1995 and redeployed in March 1996 completing the cycle

Somehow does not make sense to me. -- (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Troops vs. Companies[edit]

Infantry battalions have companies while cavalry squadrons have troops; however, in this article I see squadrons with companies. I'm aware that such units are often predominately infantry and the infantrymen, to emphasize their MOSs, favor calling their units companies instead of troops. What is the official, DA-approved designation? Companies or troops? I suspect the latter.VilePig (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Stryker units are infantry units, hence companies. Mct mht (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked with the US Army Center of Military History which confirmed the units are officially designated as troops, not companies, even though the 2d is known for calling its units by other than correct designations. For further clarification contact Stephen Everett, Organizational History Team Leader, Force Structure and Unit History Branch, U.S. Army Center of Military History (AAMH-FPO), VilePig (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a soldier currently serving in 2CR and the companies are called Troops.. We used to be Comanche Company, however DA required us to change our headers and put "Troop" in. I suggest that the article be changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No more Stryker[edit]

Can the title of the article be changed to 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) Foofbun (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

2d Stryker Cavalry Regiment2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) – The current name of the unit; Stryker has been dropped from its name, and 2nd is the correct format. —innotata 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Support rename. The original change, IMO, was shortsighted. Intothatdarkness 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment – I am not so sure that 2nd is the correct format is in fact correct. My understanding is that the standard US Army usage would be 2d (and 3d – see 3d Cavalry Regiment). Note the usage on the official site. Hamish59 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think WP:ENGVAR guides us to use the US "2d", but otherwise I support this move, see my additional comments below. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • "2d" is not standard usage in the U.S.! It's just widespread in the military, and probably only recently; I've never seen any other articles on military units that use this shortened form of ordinal. I don't care myself, but I think I'll ask someone who might know/care. —innotata 01:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Clarify @Innotata, I did not say standard usage in the U.S. I said standard US Army usage. Hamish59 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • @Hamish59 Yeah, I was replying to Peacemaker67. I don't want anyone to think that it's an American English issue ;) As far as your point, it doesn't look standard, according to the below comment. —innotata 19:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
          • @innotata, no worries. Hamish59 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I'd be happier with one ordinal system on en WP rather than two. There are a lot of US Milhist articles using "2d", but as far as this one is concerned, let's go with "2nd". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Support rename - In the U.S. Army and Air Force 2d and 3d are fairly common, but they are not terribly consistent. Look at the unit's home page which Hamish59 linked to above. They use "2D" five times, "2ND" once and "2nd" once, other places on their web page, they spell out "Second" and often they refer to themselves as "2CR". Since they don't insist on consistency, I think we could say that on Wikipedia, we will use the standard English language ordinals which will be understood by the most people. SchreiberBike talk 02:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support rename - per nomination. Hamish59 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support rename - seems like a no-brainer to me.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support rename. Ocalafla (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Didn't this division have any role in Vietnam, I'm sure they did, so why isn't it included in this wikipedia? (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)