Talk:III Corps (United States)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the III Corps (United States) article.|
|III Corps (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
OrBat is Incorrect
The army made the decision to remove all subordinate divisions from Corps when in garrison and make them directly responsible to FORSCOM. Corps only get divisions attached to them when deployed. DocHellfish (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
III CORPS OS NOT III ARMORED CORPS
Sorry, but II Corps is NOT III Armored Corps. They do not have a single lineage, but are - and have always been - two seperate units. Indeed, III Armored Corps became XIX Corps on October 10, 1943.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the first paragraph of this article is totaly incorrect, it mixes up two different corps. Also, most of the stuff written here is copy-paste from the http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/iii-corps-history.htm website, thus not following the rules and copyrights.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:III Corps (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Overall the article is good, though I found a couple issues:
- "On July 18, the attack jumped off, with the force spearheading the French Tenth Army's assault the high ground south of Soissons and cut vital rail lines." Confusing at the beginning (jumped off), reword. Also, should be 'cutting vital..' I think.
- "III Corps took the Army's east flank, would protect the flank as the Army advanced to Montfaucon, then Cunel and Romagne." Feels like a word or part of the sentence is missing.
- You seem to interchange inactivated and deactivated. I would stick with one (ideally the latter).
- Is the Fort Hood shooting relevant enough to the corps that it could be added in? I'll leave that up to you, I'm not certain either way.
- I would say so; the victims of the shooting, which gained a significant amount of publicity, were all under III Corps command. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)