Talk:7th Cavalry Regiment

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

Little Bighorn[edit]

This is the first article about the 7th Cav I've ever read that completely omits any mention of Custer or Little Bighorn. That's kind of like writing an article on George Washington and forgetting the part where he was president. - Hephaestos 04:12, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

True... thanks for relating to me the need for that information :-). ugen64 03:55, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, inside the Army, Custer is only mentioned as one of the first commanders of the Regiment, and litle more. The Massacre is totally glossed over, and the unit was restored as if it never ceased to exist. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Lt. Col George A. Custer only commanded in the field. The regiments commander was Col. Samuel D. Sturgis. Sturgis spent most of the time before Little Big Horn in the east, recruiting. His son, 2nd Lt. James G.(Jack) Sturgis died with E company (Gray Horse Troop) of Custer's battalion. After Little Big Horn, Sturgis returned to field commmand of the regiment

Also, all the 7th did was "being present" at the Wounded Knee Massacre? Hm... --Odoakerston 12:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article corrects these obvious oversights. --Habap 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Not anymore, with the criticism section taken out. ArekExcelsior 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. It is covered in the Indian Wars section, where it belongs:
Lieutenant Colonel George A. Custer's disaster at the Battle of the Little Bighorn on June 25 and 26, 1876, while a stunning defeat, demonstrated the sheer bravery of the 7th Cavalrymen despite the sheer stupidity of its commander: fourteen soldiers received the Medal of Honor during that battle. The regiment perpetrated the Wounded Knee Massacre on December 29, 1890, the end of the Indian Wars.
Please re-read the entire article and identify the parts that are POV. --Habap 13:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That section is in fact POV. Firstly, the article attributes "bravery" and "stupidity" to historical forces and individuals, a clear sign of POV. (A very questionable one indeed in this case, since whether a group coming in to help whites secure gold rights and so on is being "brave" when repelled by the individuals who live in the area is certainly not obvious). Second, in line with Custer's alleged "stupidity", it fails to mention a historical viewpoint that attributes Custer's defeat at the Bighorn to the rampant government corruption of the 19th century, which led his intelligence about Native American warriors to be inaccurate. Third, after complimenting the group glowingly, it merely mentions in passing that the group committed an infamous massacre, violating the uneven focus standard.

However, the article is improving substantially, with references to No Gun Ri. The criticism of their actions as a unit during the Phillipines conflict needs to be added, and I believe some of their lesser-known actions during the Indian Wars (some under Custer, some not) have also been omitted. Later on I'll work on a "Global symbolism" or similar section that describes their public perception in the world.
(EDIT): After seeing the sources, I also see that the sources for the No Gun Ri and other data is limited, specifically deleting the ZMag article I found. The allegations of an internal coverup are also missing. There are also those who argue that the "bravery" and skill of the 7th at Little Bighorn is overrated, as apparently twenty-five Blue Coats killed each other through friendly fire. ArekExcelsior 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Brave" is certainly a subjective judgment but the idea that it depends on being on the side of right and justice is laughable. The fact that it was wrong to take land from the Native Americans does not detract from any bravery that may have been displayed by any of the troopers. But it is a subjective judgment as you say. (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven71.234.37.99 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Lt. Col George A. Custer only commanded in the field."- Erm....


The 7th Cavalry is often cited as being a symbol of American imperialism. An article that doesn't discuss that is as biased as an article that just discusses the force structure of the Nazi military. -ArekExcelsior

So you are comparing America to the Nazi military??? Why is somebody who is a self proclaimed anarchist allowed to defame the US military on Wikipedia? This is a travesty.

No, you pedophile. The real travesty is the kid gloves treatment given to the 7th Rape-Murder Cavalry Regiment, a band of slobbering perverts even in the present time, by the United States government's lie and propaganda website, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Some would say that this article is biased. You should put a criticisms paragraph in every single article in wikipedia. I usually only see criticism paragraphs in articles related to the USA.
No, I am not (at least in this argument) comparing the US to the Nazi military. Read carefully, please. I simply stated that an "objective" overview of a force structure without mention of its alleged (not even seriously questioned, at least not pre-Korea) particular involvement in arguable genocide is not even remotely NPOV. The removal of the criticism section smacks of a violation of NPOV and also leaves out a historically quite frequent and very specific criticism of this very unit. My criticism contribution was phrased neutrally and made clear the sources of criticism (if I could find rebuttals to claims, I would note them as well). On this very talk page, even a SSG has described the problem my criticism section cited.
The anarchist bit is an ad hom runby, nothing else. My political opinions do not disqualify me from contributing about the military. As far as criticism being needed elsewhere, I'm absolutely sure the format needs to be improved to include criticism when it is historically available and frequent, I was just editing the particular topic I saw. ArekExcelsior 06:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
By choosing to compare an article to articles on Nazi military units you are, in fact, comparing the two. Though, the Wounded Knee massacre isn't unlike ethnic cleansing performed by some such units.
If you have sources on the 7th itself being considered a symbol of imperialism, please post those. I don't think the appropriate title for the section would be "Criticism", but rather something like "Symbolism" or "Global image". --Habap 13:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, no, I could make the same argument about Iraqi units, North Korean units, Chinese units, etc. Simply put, under NPOV standards, if a unit has been seriously alleged to have been involved in atrocities, it must be noted within that unit's history or elsewhere in an easily accessible article linked from the core article. And you are correct, not only the Wounded Knee massacre but the massacre of South Koreans and the involvement in the invasion of the Phillipines is very much like Nazi units. Even the CIA has admitted that, say, the US-backed Indonesian exterminations under Suharto were of a type consistent with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. (Not relevant for this section, of course).
The article I linked to did contain such references, but I wanted to focus less on global perception (an interesting topic in and of itself) and more on specific crimes attributed to the unit. At the very least, the Wounded Knee, some of the atrocities under Custer, and the involvement in the Phillipines (and subsequent criticism) has to be listed, as this data is not seriously questioned.
It seems that the formatting is an issue: Any recommendations? I think it would be worthwhile to combine Habap's suggestion of the unit's global perception or symbolism with concrete information that leads many to have that symbolism... Either allegations should be interspersed within the article at relevant historical periods or combined at the bottom in such a section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArekExcelsior (talkcontribs) 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Are you the left-wing asshole that put 17 winners of the Medal Of Honor were "engaged in the mass murder of Wounded Knee"? That was a battle. This kind of thing is exactly why Wikipedia is considered a joke and a garbage rag.

The bias here is in favor of American expansion from the very opening onward. There is no actual history being explained here, just propaganda even if it is old. That is hard to remove, but effort should be made to have an encyclopedia document fact and the existence of propaganda rather than serve as a tool for its spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it that bad. I tweaked it a bit. About the only thing left is "patrolling against Indian incursions" or something like that. But I suspect the statement is more or less accurate. Government policy was not made by the 7th cavalry. The 7th cavalry executed government policy. Some people don't like the history. But it happened. Student7 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Although the 4th Squadron is listed at Camp Casey, it is really Camp Hovey (yes, part of the same "enclave" and connected, But there was a world of difference between the two camps for us over there.) If proof is needed, I'm sure I can dig some up somewhere.-- 08:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof is not needed. I served with A/4/7 Cav (Out Front!) at Camp Hovey. I'm not contributing to the discussings about our squadron regimental history, because I find it immaterial to my purposes. Feel free to discuss. <>

Sometime in the early/mid 80s the 3rd Sq became the Div CAV for the 8th INF Div stationed at Coleman Barracks, GE until its deactivation in 1991. I served in 3/7 CAV from 88 till 91 and the Sq had been part of the 8th ID and at Coleman since 84 or so. Cutter-wike (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I joined the unit stationed at Ledward barracks in Schweinfurt WG in March 1987 and it was the 3ID divisional cavalry unit, and they had just performed the change of unit cerimony and were formerly 3/7 cav and had transitioned to 4/4 cav at that time (name only change equipment and people remained the same). So for the person above, the 3/7 cav probably materialized at Coleman at the same time. From my memory they were moving alot of unit designations around with the hope to implement some sort of regimental affiliation for soldiers so they could get stationed in multiple places and still be associated with a regement. That sort of fell apart around 1989 at then end of the cold war when downsizing made them realize that was unrealistic to be able to make that work, and then they started focusing on restoring old relationships between units, and 3/7 cav returned as the divisional cavalry unit for the 3ID again. Would need someone from the mid to late 90s to confirm when that was restored. Tigerman67 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Someone who knows about this topic, please verify the edits of on 02:25, 13 February 2007. This user has been making very strange edits. If the edits are incorrect, please report the user for vandalism, reverse the edit, and reply to this message. If the edits are correct, please just reply to this message to say so. Yessopie 08:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine[edit]

Should be something about the scene with the 7th cavalry in the Beatles' Yellow Submarine movie... AnonMoos 19:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Vehicles- M551 Sheridans, not M60 Pattons[edit]

Vehicles--For what's it's worth and for the sake of accuracy, I was in the 3/7 in the late 1970's and we had M551 Sheridans, not M60 Pattons, as stated in the article. -- 17:31, 28 August 2007

Another note about vehicles, By about 1985 3/7 cav (A and B troups) were using M3 Bradleys, I was with the unit at the beginning of 1986, and they had the vehicles for some time before I got there. There were several old 3/7 posters in the day room that showed the troopers of the unit and had M60 tanks, so they did have M60s at sometime between the gentlemans above comments in the late 70's and 1985. Not sure if they transitioned through those M113 based hammer head tow vehicles or transitioned straight to M3 bradleys from M60's. At this same time C and D troops were avaition and had Cobra gun ships, kiowa scouts and UH1 Hueys in the same time frame. Tigerman67 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Band and equipment?[edit]

In addition to a number of NPOV errors in the Indian Wars section, the claim that the Seventh was the "only cavalry regiment to have a band" is simply incorrect. Other regiments had bands, but they did not necessarily get the notice that the 7th's had (mainly due to their 'performance' at the Washita fight). During this time, band members were detailed from existing companies, and the band was typically found at the post containing the regimental headquarters. The section on cavalry equipment during the Indian Wars is also pretty poor.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Immortal Regiment?[edit]

This should not be in the article lede...if it should be there at all. Only include it in the article body if it can be properly sourced. Otherwise it's just straight POV.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed gruesome image[edit]

Sorry, that photo of the naked, mutilated trooper was just too much. I know it's the reality of what happened, but I felt it was too graphic and gory, particularly w/ specific individual i.d. I'll try to find a replacement image. Tomseattle (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)