# Talk:III Armored Corps

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)

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.--85.160.31.220 (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4ID is at FT Hood, TX, Not FT Carson, CO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 05:54, 14 October 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.
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"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.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You seem to interchange inactivated and deactivated. I would stick with one (ideally the latter).
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
In that case I'd like to see a couple sentences added to the article on it. After that's done I'll pass it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll put this on hold and pass when the issues are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your points, thank you for reviewing the article. —Ed!(talk) 15:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Everything looks good now, so the article passes GA status. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the organization still current as known to the public? Or has it changed? Please let me know, and I'll see about fixing it if it's not current. Just tell me which divisions or brigades have been moved into III Armored. Faith15 14:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)