Talk:93rd Infantry Division (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I'm dumping this here because it isn't wikified, and it seems to be just a copy/paste dump from the USCMH website, which could lead to copy vio issues. If I'm wrong, put it back -- but Wikify it. --Jpbrenna 02:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Combat Chronicle[edit]

An advance party of the 93d Infantry Division arrived at Guadalcanal, 29 January 1944. Other echelons landed 6, 17 February and 5 March, one regiment disembarking at the Russell Islands, 7 February. The bulk of the division engaged in training, labor and security duties on Guadalcanal, the Treasury Islands from 7 June, Hollandia, Dutch New Guinea, from 30 October. Component units performed similar duties at Wake Island, 20 January 1945 to 2 October, Finschhafen, 12 October 1944 to 31 March 1945, Los Negros, 29 September 1944 to 16 March 1945, and Blak, 10 October 1944 to 1 October 1945. Combat elements moved to Bougainville Island, 28 March 1944, and were attached to the Americal Division on the 30th. On that date they entered combat, assisting in attacks on the enemy perimeter. These elements, the 25th RCT, reconnoitered across the Laruma River, 2 April, and in the Torokina River Valley, 7 to 12 April 1944. The 25th RCT operated against the Japanese along the Kuma and East-West Trails during May. The combat team left for Green Islands during May and June. The 93d Rcn. Troop attached to the XIV Corps remained to raid, patrol, and maintain perimeter positions. The troop began training 12 September 1944, and moved to Finschhafen, 1 November. Security patrols had scattered contacts with the enemy at Urapas, 3 to 15 January 1945, at Wardo, 6 November-22 December, and at Wari 31 December. The security detachments at Wardo and Wari were withdrawn, 9-10 February 1945. Almost all of the Division occupied Morotai, Dutch New Guinea, 4 April to 21 October 1945. Scattered skirmishes occurred along the northwestern sector of the island. The 93d continued its labor and security missions. It occupied Sansapor, 5 April to 10 July 1945, Middleburg Island, 5 April to 7 October 1945, and Noemfoor Island, 13 April to 7 June 1945. The Division moved to Zamboanga, Philippine Islands, where it remained from 1 July 1945 to 7 January 1946. Patrols encountered light resistance until the end of hostilities, 15 August 1945. Palawan was occupied, 2 July to 5 December 1945, Jolo, 1 July to 2 October 1945, and Sanga-Sanga, 3 July 1945 to 6 January 1946. The Division arrived at Mindanao 9 October 1945, moved to Tacloban, Leyte, 13 January 1946, and left for home, 17 January.

Page move[edit]

I just noticed it - and it's wrong. Unfortunately, ninety years ago they didn't conform to Wikipedia numbering rules. Listing this at "U.S. 93nd (can that really be the correct Wikipedia or British English abbreviation?) Infantry Division" is historically incorrect. Just as we don't have United States Army Air Forces at "United States Army Air Force" or Royal Welch Fusiliers at "Royal Welsh Fusiliers," so we shouldn't have this here. It's historically incorrect, it was wrong to move it, and if you don't like that then tell it to the Marines. --Joe 06:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, I think you were trying to move it to "93rd?"--Joe 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I checked, "93d" is correct. --Joe 06:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop moving this page[edit]

"93rd Infantry Division" is historically correct. The sources give it as "93d Infantry Division." Also, this has been moved repeatedly without discussion and in such a manner as to create double redirects. The novice Wikipedians who are doing this need to check the discussion history before moving.--Joe 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of moving pages, this page was recently moved to "United States *** Division." If you click on the infantry division category at the bottom of the page, all U.S. divisions are in the format "U.S. *** Infantry Division." Whoever moved the page should have checked the format before moving it. Nobunaga24 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That was me, I was looking at all the redirects and accidentally moved the wrong one.--Joe 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment hidden in page text[edit]

No one said they didn't fight - they just didn't fight as a division. The division was broken up and its regiments were seconded to the French Army, as noted in the article. We just need to get the French units to which they were attached and the battles in which they fought. I have added the Second Battle of The Marne (369th Inf) to the infobox, but I don't have information on the other units yet. --Joe 02:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

U.S. 93rd Infantry Division to 93d Infantry Division. Conforms to established Wikiproject Military History disambiguation practice while preserving historically correct "3d" abbreviation; cf. U.S. 3d Infantry Division. --Joe 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support.--Joe 00:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments

User:Jpbrenna Next time please read Wikipedia:Requested moves#Steps for requesting a page move and set up page moves using the three steps. You did not even get the current page name correct calling it by the redirect name United States 93rd Infantry Division in you request on WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time I posted the request, it was at "United States..." etc., not U.S. --Joe 00:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The 93d was never officially known as anything but a "Provisional" division during the war. It was never officially termed the '93rd Divisions (Colored)',though it may have been informlly referred to as such. The divisional headquarters was organized on a provisional basis according to a skelteon manning, and there never was an intent to plus it up to regular strength, nor was it ever so organized. It's provisional status for the short life of the division (just 5 months) reflects this, as the artillery brigade, the division troops and the division trains were never organized. Authorized strength for the provisional division was nver more than one third of a regular division (9,000 vs 27,123). The division headquarters was expressly organized merely for ahort-term administrative control, rather than operational control. The four infantry regiments and division headquarters never serve together as a whole unit, with the regiments flowing overseas throughout a 5 month period. The division headquarters was disestablished just 3 weeks after the last infantry companies arrived in France.

In addition, the chart showing which French units the regiments fell under is confusing (two columns showing army, and one column showing division), inaccurate and incomplete. For instance, it shows the 170th Regiment serving under the French 26th Division during the period 1 Aug to 23 Oct; in fact the regiment never served with that division. It served under the French 73d, 133d, 10th, 34th Div (II Colonial Corps), 36th and finally (on 4 Sept 1918) the 59th Division. (All info in the preceeding paras comes from The Order of Battle of the United States Land Forces inthe World War, Vol 2.)

Finally, the idea that the 'main American Expeditionary Force' refused to serve with black units is an unsupportable assertion; the idea that the beliefs of an organization totaling one million men from all parts of the nation could be reduced to one sentiment on this issue is patently absurd.

Unless anyone objects, I'll modify the article in a couple of days. (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)