# Talk:82nd Sustainment Brigade

Hello VilePig, I see you continue to remove the "(Airborne)" from full title of the 7th Transportation Battalion on 82nd Sustainment Brigade page. Regardless of airborne status, past or present, the Department of the Army has assigned the unit the official title of "7th Transportation Battalion (Airborne)."

I am not implying it makes sense. For example, The Army continues to assign the high-drag, low-speed 101st Airborne Division the title of "airborne". So perhaps because of the 7th Trans' lineage, or maybe because of the parachute Riggers assigned to them, the Army continues to identify them with the parenthetical "airborne" designation.

Army46Q (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Army46Q: Wish I had good news to pass on to you, but I've checked with The Institute of Heraldry about the 7th being designated as Airborne and the reply reads: "There is nothing in our files indicating the Battalion is designated airborne." Their info comes straight from DA. You may wish to verify at your end the claims being made that the 7th is designated as Airborne. Recommend you go to DA level, not someone local, and no doubt you'll receive the same answer I did.

The 7th does indeed have two QM rigger companies assigned, but the presence of subordinate Airborne units doesn't convey Airborne status to the parent unit. This is like stating an aviation brigade is Airborne because it has a pathfinder platoon assigned.

Numerous brigades at Fort Bragg have seen their jump status terminated in the last few years but reportedly still wear maroon berets and Airborne tabs, while others wear berets and tabs but have never been Airborne. (This would include the 108th ADA Bde, which only has one Airborne element, a single ADA battery formerly assigned to the 82d Abn Div. The rest of the brigade is purely leg.) Having been in Airborne and leg units myself, I would probably be happy if I were in a leg unit and my battalion or brigade commander found some convoluted way to proclaim the unit to be Airborne, and everyone could wear Airborne uniform items. After all, who wants to be in a leg unit at Fort Bragg, the "Home of the Airborne"? But I would also know that it was all a false front.

The 101st is a rare case. When it was taken off jump status in 1968 in Vietnam and converted to an airmobile division, the Army briefly designated it the 101st Airmobile Division and the 101st Air Cavalry Division before settling on the 101st Airborne Division (Airmobile) (later changed to "Air Assault" in 1974). No doubt the presence of many former division members at high levels of the Army at that time helped to ensure that "Airborne" remained in the title in recognition of the division's history. The 7th Trans Bn, however, has no such comparable history and has no actual designation of "Airborne," honorary or otherwise. This appears to be a local creation.

The 101st is Airborne in the same way the 1st Cavalry Division is a horse unit and the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) is a mountain outfit. (The 10th is "Mountain" in name only. When it was being reactivated in the mid-80s, the Army intended to designate it as the 10th Infantry Division (Light). The intervention of Sen. Bob Dole, WW II vet of the 10th, ensured the 10th retained its old title.) Also, in its original WW II meaning, "Airborne" meant parachute, glider and airlanded units. The latter included lightly-equipped aviation engineer and AAA units that could be quickly offloaded at newly-captured airfields to restore them to flying status (engineers) and protect them from enemy aircraft (AAA). Such units were inactivated after the war and, as the remaining glider units were converted to parachute, the term "Airborne" became synonymous with parachute. With that in mind, I don't begrudge the 101st still being called "Airborne" as long as it is followed with "(Air Assault)" to clarify its true status.

DA could have saved a lot of heartburn by simply inactivating the 101st after the pull-out from Vietnam and retaining the 1st Cav Div as the Army's Airmobile division rather than recreating it at Fort Hood as a heavy division. Had that happened, most likely there never would have been Air Assault wings or any fuss over what to call a former parachute division.

The pictures I've seen online of personnel wearing the 82d Sustainment Brigade patch show Airborne tabs being worn. There's only one correct way for the patch to be worn and that's how it's shown at this IOH website - no tab, since it's not designated by DA as an Airborne unit.[1] Yes, a bitter pill to swallow, but that's the way it is.

Even the riggers assigned to the brigade are not authorized the tab. This surprised me as well when I learned about it from the IOH, but small Airborne units (such as riggers, LRS, pathfinders, etc.) under non-Airborne commands are not authorized to add an Airborne tab above a non-Airborne shoulder patch. This has been done by units for many decades but there is no authorization for it in the regs, as the tab is considered part of the patch, not an add-on item. The IOH knows, however, that many units at Fort Bragg simply wear what pleases them, not what they're authorized.

If the 7th Trans Bn were recognized by DA as an Airborne unit, by now it should have its own beret flash and parachute wing background listed here on The Institute of Heraldry website.[2]  As one will notice, there's not even a category for Airborne Transportation Corps units.
VilePig (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
VilePig,
I agree that DA does not consider the 7th Trans an airborne unit. The DA guidance we received when the 7th Trans became part of the 82nd Sustainment Brigade (with its own DUI, beret flash, and jump wing background that it wears to this day) was that the "Orient Express's" official name was 7th Transportation Battalion (Airborne). 

You are correct regarding 82nd SB troops wearing the airborne tab over the patch - totally unauthorized by TIOH. As you pointed out, you don't have to be airborne to wear the tab. This is where we see a serious rift between the thirty-odd civilians in Belvoir and senior Army leadership. Certainly the 82nd SB commander - or any of the independent Corps units on Bragg that sport the tab - would permit it without high-level complacency. The airborne tab is not a skill identifier; that's what the parachutists badge is for. Nevertheless, the 82nd Sustainment Brigade wears the tab, maroon beret, and class-A jump boots much as the Army calls the 101st "Airborne" and the 10th "Mountain"; and the 7th Transportation Battalion (Airborne)!

Since Wikipedia is founded on citations and reference, I must concede that you can cite the 7th Trans without the parenthetical "Airborne" and I can not cite otherwise. It's a shame because so much of what the IOH expounds does not reflect the reality, and is disregarded by command sergeant's major, birds, and stars (i.e the U.S. flag is to be worn 1/8 inch below the combat patch, according to TIOH).

Army46Q (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Army46Q,

You wrote that the 82nd Sustainment Brigade has "its own DUI, beret flash, and jump wing background that it wears to this day."  In mid-2008 I asked TIOH about the brigade and the response read: "The 82d Sustainment Brigade is not designated as an airborne unit and therefore is not authorized to wear the airborne tab.  Under modularity, the Sustainment Brigades are not assigned to the Divisions and may be deployed to support any unit and therefore, the 82d Sustainment Brigade is not designated as airborne."  If it's not an Airborne unit, then it stands to reason that no beret flashes or jump wing backgrounds should be worn since they would not be authorized.  The flashes and backgrounds I've seen in photos are those of HQ 82d Airborne Division, not items unique to the brigade.  Since the division and brigade are separate units, they should have different flashes and backgrounds; however, since DA does not recognize the brigade as an Airborne unit, the only flashes and backgrounds worn should be those of the rigger companies, and only in those companies.  You also mentioned jump boots with Class A's - likewise, except for the riggers, they're not authorized for the brigade, as it is not Airborne.

You also wrote that "the 'Orient Express's' official name was 7th Transportation Battalion (Airborne)."  Since the parenthetical addition of "Airborne" didn't come from DA, it appears it was added locally.  DA is the only legitimate source of such designations, so if someone at Fort Bragg chose to add it for whatever reason, it can't be considered valid.  It must come from Mount Olympus or The Burning Bush (i.e., HQ DA), not a mere mortal at post level.  If the battalion were actually on jump status, then it would have a case; without it, the unit has a hard time justifying it.

Next, your wrote "the 82nd Sustainment Brigade wears the tab, maroon beret, and class-A jump boots much as the Army calls the 101st "Airborne" and the 10th "Mountain"; and the 7th Transportation Battalion (Airborne)!"  Therein lies the problem - DA doesn't call the 7th an Airborne unit.  The 101st and the 10th retain their old designations for historical purposes and probably due to some political arm-twisting.  Nothing similar exists for the 7th.  If the 7th someday is truly Airborne and goes through experiences similar to what the 101st went through in Normandy, Holland, Belgium, southern Germany and Vietnam, or what the 10th did in the mountains of Italy in 1945, and if the 7th later loses its jump status, then perhaps the 7th can be considered for an honorary Airborne designation.  So far, however, I see this only being done for divisions, not brigades or battalions. Even in the 101st, assigned units (i.e., regiments, battalions, etc.) that may have been Airborne, Parachute or Glider during earlier eras retain no such designations now.

Lastly, you wrote, "It's a shame because so much of what the IOH expounds does not reflect the reality, and is disregarded by command sergeant's major, birds, and stars."  That gets back to what I wrote earlier - Bragg units tend to wear what they want, not what they're authorized.  This is not limited to Bragg, however.  At Fort Campbell, TIOH has gone around and around with the 101st Sustainment Brigade over the design of a new shoulder patch, much as it did with the 82d Sustainment Brigade.  A brigade E-9 told TIOH that they intend to wear an Airborne tab over the 101st Sustainment Brigade patch, whenever it finally arrives.  Everyone there likes to wear the division patch and they certainly don't want to give up the tab, authorized or not.

I understand the desire to wear things that really aren't authorized.  In the late 1970s I was in a USAR pathfinder unit where those who had attended the course wore the big cloth torch on the pockets of their jungle fatigues, much as it had been worn in an earlier era.  Sometime after I left, the unit adopted a ranger-type scroll worn above the parent leg command patch, and this continued until a full-timer was assigned who put an end to it.  In recognition of his insistence on adhering to the regs, he was nicknamed "Sgt Army."  (At the time, no one knew that we weren't supposed to be adding an Airborne tab above our otherwise leg patch, either.  Given the number of people who claim to know Army regs inside and out, it's surprising no one ever brought it up before I learned from TIOH a few years ago that this wasn't authorized.)  Undoubtedly it was a wise decision for him to make because, while it is possible to get away with a lot of things at monthly USAR drills, going off to an active Army post for a couple of weeks of annual training or attending an active duty course and wearing unauthorized items could lead to unpleasant encounters with active duty personnel, particularly those with higher rank who don't share our enthusiasm for added goodies on our uniforms.

This sort of thing seems to go on all over.  I had a friend who was a platoon leader in a Bundeswehr Airborne unit and he liked to jump with a WW II German jump helmet, the kind that looks like a kitchen pot without the handle.  This was great fun until his battalion commander found out.

If you're interested in some detective work, check through your unit archives and see just what justification was used to lay claim to the "(Airborne)" that was locally added to the unit designation.  In the end someone may tell you, "SGM Smith/LTC Jones said to do it, so we did."VilePig (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Army46Q,

I paid a visit to the U.S. Army Center of Military History at Fort McNair, Washington, DC, and reviewed the file on the 7th Trans Bn.  There's no indication of any Airborne status or designation, honorary or otherwise, at any point in the unit's history, going back to its original activation during WW II.  The most recent document was a set of orders dated 9 July 2009 from HQ FORSCOM at Fort McPherson, GA, and on the orders the full designation reads: "HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS DETACHMENT, 7TH TRANSPORTATION BATTALION (MOTOR TRANSPORT), FC, (WCKLAA), FORT BRAGG, NORTH CAROLINA 28310."  Documents from the Vietnam era used "(TRUCK)" instead of "(MOTOR TRANSPORT)."

"(Airborne)" sounds much more impressive than "(Motor Transport)" but the latter is the correct designation.  While the rigger companies assigned to the battalion are, of course, Airborne units, their assignment does not convey Airborne status upon the battalion, which remains Motor Transport.

It would be interesting to discover how the incorrect perception of regarding the Airborne designation was not only started, but apparently encouraged by local commanders, who must have known better.VilePig (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 82nd Sustainment Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070912040902/http://defendamerica.mil/articles/sept2006/a092606dg1.html to http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sept2006/a092606dg1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 82nd Sustainment Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105042843/http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2007/a061807ej2.html to http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2007/a061807ej2.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mnci.centcom.mil/News%20Stories%20for%20Default%20Page%202008/bks.doc
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Sustain/82SustainmentBrigade.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)