Talk:V Corps (United States)

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War / World War I / World War II / Cold War

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Untitled

It seems to me that there's essentially no continuity between the Civil War corps and the 20th Cen. corps. For instance, the V Corps website says 'America's "Victory Corps" Birthday - July 7, 1918'. Is there any objection to splitting them, say by creating V Corps (ACW)? —wwoods 09:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would not object. (I was the one who beefed up the ACW topic in this article.) Hal Jespersen 15:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MP Dominance on this page

Astonishing. I had no idea until I read this that the key elements of V Corps when we invaded Iraq was a couple of MP companies. (This is my sarcastic voice.) We sure as heck didn't know it at Corps headquarters. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the very large section 'From Kuwait to Baghdad' entirely about only one brigade within the corps, needs modification. I am certainly not the one to do this but it would be nice to see it changed to include the goings-on of the other brigades and elements within the corps. Joshua278 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I was there and with a few exceptions, I don't think V Corps contributed much to the fight. The OPORD they built was overly complex, riddled with flaws, and discarded shortly after the divisions crossed the LD. The real work was done by 3 ID and the Marines while V Corps generated PowerPoint Slides at Camp Virginia. The CG knew the deal and when he wasn't in a VTC holding Rummy's hand he left the staff in their do loop for the battlefield in his mobile CP doing the GEN Patton thing (to his credit). The article completely fails to mention that USAREUR deactivated V Corps in the years after OIF I, forgetting that they had to stand up a Corps HQ in Afghanistan the following year. So after they transferred or threw away the Corps equipment and PCS'd all the troops they had to stand up a new V Corps from scratch. Of course, the alternative was the hidebound Cold War relics in Heidelberg deploying and they couldn't have THAT... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.51.70 (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad we didn't have your genius on the corps staff. We were all idiots and having one guy as smart as you would have saved us all (and, yes, that's my sarcastic voice). 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really going to disband?

Still active as on 2011. So what's with the line it will be disbanded?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Inactivation"

Is that the correct term? Shouldn't it be "deactivation"? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of these use the term inactivation:

Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Plagiarism?

I am unsure if much of this article was copied to here or vice-versa, but much of this article is word for word from the official website of the US Army in Europe. In any case, nothing is linked or referenced to the official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy6860 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Change Needed

The really cool graphic that shows the organization from 1989 has an error on it. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to change it. It shows the two artillery brigades as having "staff companies." There is no such thing. Never was. Those should be "Headquarters and headquarters batteries." Yes, the name is redundant, but that's what we call them. Can someone make the change please? 155.213.224.59 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and came here to post the same thing. Sadly, it has gone uncorrected for two years. The US doesn't have "staff companies." CsikosLo (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Next time please do not leave a comment on the article's talk page, but leave a comment on the talkpage of the creator/uploader of the image file instead. noclador (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Command

What is it's higher command? Is is United States Army Forces Command?

BlueD954 (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]