Talk:Task Force 1-41 Infantry

Topic

For all I can tell after digging rather thoroughly for reliable sources that actually mention this Task Force, it consisted of the 1st Batallion, 41st Infantry Regiment and did not include an entire British division. The article's content is largely unverifiable (and partly incorrect). For these reasons, and due to the fact that there were multiple other Task Forches 1-41 also based on the 1st Batallion, 41st Infantry Regiment, I will redirect this page to our article on the 41st Infantry Regiment (United States). Huon (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am rather concerned by this article. Firstly, I see no indication the Task Force 1-41 of the 1991 Gulf War is notable. Of the given references, only two out of four so much as mention the Task Force, both in passing without covering it in any detail.

Secondly (and even worse), significant amounts of the article's content seem to be somewhere between "inaccurate" and "just plain wrong". In particular, both the references that do mention Task Force 1-41 contradict the article's content. With all the respect due Don Brunett's service in that war, his personal memories of events almsot 14 years ago seem to be less than perfect, and Wikipedia content should be based on reliable published sources in any case because, bluntly, "this is what I remember" does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability or the policy against original research. I am tempted to tag practically every single claim in this article with a {{citation needed}} tag.

Thirdly, I'm concerned about neutrality. The main reference about the Task Force I'm aware of, and apparently the only work that covers it in some detail, is James L. Hillman's Task Force 1-41 Infantry: Fratricide Experience in Southwest Asia. (Hillman was the Task Force's commander at that time and thus is not a third-party source, so this work does not alleviate the notability concerns). So what Task Force 1-41 seems best known for are instances of friendly fire. Those are not mentioned in the article at all despite causing 38 casualties and more than a half-dozen destroyed vehicles, including multiple M1 Abrams tanks - a significant percentage of all Coalition casualties suffered in the entire Gulf War.

Fourthly, there are multiple references to task forces known as "1-41" in other conflicts, including Bosnia and the 2003 Iraq War. To my knowledge such task forces are assembled for the specific conflict and are not organizationally connected to each other (beyond being based on the 1st Batallion, 41st Infantry Regiment), and I don't quite see why this specific incarnation of Task Force 1-41 should have pride of place.

For these reasons I have once again redirected the article to the article on the 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) and would ask Don Brunett not to revert that without addressing these concerns. Huon (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

So Huon now that the article is complete do you still think all this Task Force did was get shot at by friendly units?Don Brunett (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

For the record, here (page 16) is the specific unit citation for Task Force 1-41. Huon (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day, responding here to the comments on the Milhist talkpage. Given there is some challenge to these points, the best way to get community consensus would be to AfD it. I agree about there being other TF 1-41's, but battalion-level units can be notable, depending on coverage. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The references Road to Safwan and Jayhawk both strongly support my article. I also provided a link the the U.S. Army Military history page where the Valorous Unit Award Citation is also present.Don Brunett http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/vua_citations.html

Don Brunett has left a reply at User talk:Huon#Task Force 1-41. I'll copy it below:

Huon you have been very disrespectful to me and the men of this Task Force. We had a brigade from the British 1st Armoured division assigned to us at the Battle of Norfolk. You also make claims of these friendly fire incidents with incorrect numbers. You also are off ten years on the date of this battle. You are presenting incorrect facts yourself without any knowledge of the conflict or the units involved in the Task Force. Instead you single out a very small part of the Task Force's experience while overlooking the fact the Task force was awarded a Valorous Unit award. Maybe you should read two of the books I provided as references. Road to Safwan dedicates a entire chapter to the TF. Don Brunett (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don BrunettDon Brunett (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

For the claim that a British brigade was "assigned" to this task force I'd like to see a reliable source. The numbers of casualties for the friendly fire incident are taken directly from the paper by Lt. Col. James L. Hillman, at that time commander of Task Force 1-41, who on page 6 of the PDF says: "During the war in the Persian Gulf, I commanded Task Force 1-41 Infantry. My task force suffered three fratricidal engagements at the cost of six soldiers killed and thirty-two wounded." That's 38 casualties, compared to a total of 615 combat casualties in the entire Gulf War and a total of 35 dead by friedly fire (again according to Hillman). Road to Safwan devotes Chapter 8 to Task Force Iron, but explicitly states on page 96 (and Hillman confirms) that Task Force 1-41 was only one part of Task Force Iron, not the whole (and the book is more concerned with the exploits of the other part, 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry). So unless Don Brunett wants to claim that both the books he cites and the report by the task force commander are glaringly incorrect, I'd say he just made my point about the lack of precision of his personal memories. (He's right about me miscalculating how long ago the Gulf War was waged; of course it's almost 24 years, not just 14. Time flies.) Following Peacemaker67's advice I'll send the article to AfD. Huon (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I could change the title to Task Force Iron if that would make you happy? I was with 4/3 FA so I am not showing favoritism.Don Brunett (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

@Don Brunett: From checking sources, Task Force Iron was built around the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Armored Division, while TF 1-41 was built around the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment and was an element of TF Iron. This article appears to confuse the two to some extent - what is the desired topic for the article? Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick whatever you feel is valid sir. Thank you. ==Don Brunett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Brunett (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Both are valid (as actual units), but what are you aiming to cover in this article? I think that the battalion-level task force was notable as the large-scale friendly fire incident and VUA should have generated sufficent coverage, and I don't think that there'd be any argument over the brigade being notable. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick I like what you did with the article. Lets leave it that way. I can tell you most of the other units had such incidents. It's just that because of the nature of the circumstances TF 1-41 received more recognition over its incident. It was a mess out there. A living hell that particular night with so much confusion. Title it the way you see fit. Don Brunett (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

Notable "temporary" unit?

An issue here is whether TF 1-41 is a notable temporary unit, with there also being a broader issues of how Wikipedia treats such units. Going by its designation, this was a unit built around the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, which is confirmed by the order of battle for the unit citation at [1] (which appears more likely than the unreferenced OOB currently in the article). As modern armies tend to fight in combined arms groupings, with their elements cross attached from "specialist" units, IMO there's a pretty strong case for having articles on notable temporary combat groups. The situation with the US Army of this era is a bit complex as (as I understand it) sub-units of infantry and armoured battalions within the armoured and mechanised divisions were routinely cross-attached, and it ran against doctrine for these battalions to go into combat in any other form. There's a good description of the make up of this task force at [2] (pages 4-6) which notes that a company of 3-66 Armor was "habitually" attached to 1-41 Infantry, and the formation of this grouping was considered straightforward. Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2014 (UT) Nick this TF was built around many units like you mentioned. I was with 4/3 FA but we were part of TF 1-41. We were with them the entire conflict. Huon likes to point out friendly fire incidents which is a very common but unfortunate aspect of war. The Valorous Unit Award supports my beliefs they were exceptional men. There is no such thing as a clean war.Don Brunett (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

On the Valorous Unit Award Task Force Iron elements are mentioned as TF 1-41 elements. I have made some edits to the article.Don Brunett (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

Another issue is that probably every US infantry and armoured battalion which saw combat in the Gulf War did so organised into task force structures such as this one, so references are needed to reliable sources to demonstrate that there's sufficient coverage for this particular task force to be considered notable. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick this was one of the few Task Forces which received a Valorous Unit Award. The majority were issued on battalion level. This makes TF 1-41 exceptional. They were also the first soldiers to breach the enemy initial defenses. Ever clear a bunker Nick?Don Brunett (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

No, but that's not really relevant... (I bet you haven't done bits of my job either). Notability in Wikipedia terms is dependent on the availability of independent reliable sources which cover the topic, and not whether the topic is judged to be important by individual editors - please see WP:ORG. I've looked at the official histories of the Gulf War available on the US Army's Center for Military History website, and they don't appear to single out this task force. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick but its citation is presented here on the U.S. Army history site. Read the first available citation. http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/vua_citations.html Don Brunett (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

Also, we have all cited at least three references where this Task Force is mentioned. I'm done arguing my point. It's not in my hands. Don Brunett (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

Possible source - Kevlar Legions

Kevlar Legions: The Transformation of the United States Army 1989-2005, by John Sloan Brown appears to have something about this task force on page 398 but I cant access that page on Google Books - link here [3]. Anyone have a copy? Anotherclown (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The US Army Center for Military History appears to have a copy at [4] Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That just mentions that it was used to reinforce the 82nd Airborne Div during the buildup and so really doesn't count.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Another source - Operation Desert Storm: Apache Helicopter Fratricide Incident

Operation Desert Storm: Apache Helicopter Fratricide Incident by Barbara J. Cart, ‎William E. McDaniel, ‎E. Randy Stone - 1997 - available via Google Books here [5]. Quite a bit of coverage here it seems, although obviously focused on only one aspect of the task force's operations. Anotherclown (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The full text is also available at [6] Nick-D (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

General comments

I think that this is borderline on notability as the majority of references appear to focus on the fratricide problems. If we had better coverage as to the TF's activities in general during the war, I'd be more comfortable with it as a standalone article. I think that it's probably best incorporated into the regiment's article for now. That said, I think that there are major errors of fact as given. Most glaring to me is the confusion between TF Iron and TF 1-41 as the other battalions listed as assigned to the infantry battalion were, in all probability, assigned to the brigade. Forex, only in the rarest of circumstances would a field artillery battalion be directly assigned as part of a battalion-level TF, and the same goes for the support battalion. They might be directed to give priority of effort in support of one battalion, but they'd remain brigade-level assets. And I think I can safely assert that there's no way that a British brigade is going to be assigned to a American battalion-level TF whose commander is junior to him, while the assignment of that brigade in support of an American brigade would be reasonably common. Typically an American battalion-level TF is going to have only company-sized assets assigned from other units and they're not even identified here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources I've been able to find don't mention the UK division - they note that TF Iron was part of the 1st Armored Division, which appears to have fought as a unit. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Later service - Iraq 2004, others?

Gday - (leaving aside the main topic of the following news item to focus on the background information it provides) this article [7] Killings Sting Proud Battalion: Six murder charges in Iraq and the U.S. are leveled against seven soldiers in a historic Army unit, by Edmund Sanders, David Zucchino and Stephanie Simon December 13, 2004, Los Angles Times, suggests that a task force by this name (also based on 1st Bn, 41st Inf Regt) has been formed on other occasions - specifically Iraq 2004 (but maybe others - my knowledge on the US Army is fairly limited but I would assume it probably served multiple tours of Iraq and possible Afghanistan over the last decade like many other units for instance). If this article is going to remain it would need to reflect this fact as in its current form it obviously only covers the TF's service during the First Gulf War. Anotherclown (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point but something I want to bring to everybody's attention. Do you realize this article already provides more information on this particular unit than what a lot of other Wikipedia articles do on their respective subjects? I mean there are three or four references provided. There is a fairly detailed Valorous Unit Award Citation. This particular unit suffered some real hardship in the process of inflicting heavy losses on the enemy. It was the spearhead of 7th Corps. Don Brunett (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That may or not be true, but that's also irrelevant. The information that you provided is incomplete and needs to be fleshed out which we're attempting to do as we search for more information before it can stand on its own as an article. And Anotherclown brings up a another relevant point, in that TF 1-41 was almost certainly formed in different incarnations every time it deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. And each of those is inherently as notable as the one under discussion here, although I'm very willing to bet cash money that not much third-party info is available on those incarnations. Your passion does you great credit, Don, but a lot more information is needed before it can stand on its own.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand the US Army's organisational and naming practices, a "TF 1-41" would have been formed every time 1-41 exchanged sub-units with other battalions during deployments and (presumably) exercises. The 1991 version may be the only individually notable incarnation of the TF though. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The 1991 version is the only one awarded a Valorous Unit Award. This makes it exceptional.Don Brunett (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Don Brunett

Possibly, depends what the various other incarnations accomplished. The fundamental point, Don, that you don't seem to be grasping, is that one of the primary criteria that makes a unit notable is third-party sourcing. And much of what you've provided isn't third-party and really needs confirmation. It's also full of gaping holes in covering that incarnation's history. Nobody here is demeaning the accomplishments of the the unit or the soldiers who fought in it, but you need to understand that we need better documentation than the VUA citation and a few mentions in various books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been at least three references cited. No other Task Force during that conflict was given as much recognition nor was it decorated like 1-41. Also, it is mentioned on brigade level and mentioned again on division level. It performed the majority of combat operations at the Battle of Norfolk and destroyed a brigade at 73 Easting. Don Brunett

We're getting a bit tangled around the axle here. This article is effectively about 1st Bn, 41st Infantry, ever since the U.S. Army started cross-attaching companies before battle (thus at least since the Army of Excellence in the 1980s). The thing with this particular piece that's been written so far is that it only covers 1990-91 (actually really 1991 only). There's a lot more to tell before and since, through the deficiencies in the 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) article make it hard to start filling in the gaps. Should say as a late addition I've tried to add all that I can find through a cursory search to the 41st Inf Regt article.Buckshot06 (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Desert Storm 1991.jpg
• Damaged Abrams.jpg
• Task Force 1-41.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Why has any mention, or detail, of the fratricide incidents been removed?

This entry totally ignores a major element of what occurred to Task Force 1-41 during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. The fratricide incidents (yes, there were multiple) are completely ignored and this does a major disfavor to the historical accuracy and integrity of not only the entry, but the unit. I know that earlier versions of this entry included details of these occurrences but it seems, for some reason, it has been purged of them. Why? 2003:C7:727:F001:3191:33F8:FD04:DDE6 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

They are mentioned. Just not in detail. Mechanized battalion (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Poor-quality images

User:Mechanized battalion has been edit warring to keep this unrecognizable image in the article. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY discusses avoiding images like this. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)