Post by John R on Apr 20, 2011 7:44:57 GMT 8
Bill Calhoun makes a very valid point, albeit the explanation of his reason for being opposed, was not very well. History has proven that many of the WWII units have lost their identity as a result of merging into the ranks of other military units that were created from an existing unit (such as what they did with our 503rd ICT). As I see it, the merger aftermath focal point will be on the 173rd, and not the 503rd PRCT. That is just a fact of life because only the younger soldiers will know the history of the 173rd, and none will know anything about the forefather unit of the 503rd PRCT. I urge you to take a look at what they did to us when we were on Okinawa. We wanted to be able to wear the 503 shoulder patch, to which we were denied. Since we were attached to the 25th Infantry Division (which had no Airborne history), they approved for us to wear that patch. We vehemently declined, and thus, I believe that we were the only unit in the entire US Army that did not wear a shoulder patch. We only wore the Airborne tab because we did not want our Airborne unit status diminished in any way, whatsoever. I think that Bill Calhoun’s sentiments are basically the same.
When I joined the Army in 1957, there were numerous WWII and Korean War Vets. I could not have been more proud to serve with such distinguished men. And their history is diminishing very rapidly because not many of them are still around anymore. All they have now are memories, and if they merged with another unit, those memories will be lost forever to those whom are fortunate to still be living. I never knew why the Army had to change our unit designation from the 503rd ICT to the 173rd Airborne Brigade because all of the military combat accomplishments (that should have been bestowed upon the 503rd ICT) were bestowed on the 173rd. I don’t think that makes for good military sense, nor did it improve moral. What if we had actually went into combat when the Chinese crossed the Laotian border? We would have gone into combat in Vietnam as the 503rd ICT. I see nothing substantially gained by the Army changing the unit designation from the 503rd ICT, to the 173rd.
Sorry, but I agree with Bill Calhoun as I think that every combat fighting unit should retain their identity at all costs.
John R.
When I joined the Army in 1957, there were numerous WWII and Korean War Vets. I could not have been more proud to serve with such distinguished men. And their history is diminishing very rapidly because not many of them are still around anymore. All they have now are memories, and if they merged with another unit, those memories will be lost forever to those whom are fortunate to still be living. I never knew why the Army had to change our unit designation from the 503rd ICT to the 173rd Airborne Brigade because all of the military combat accomplishments (that should have been bestowed upon the 503rd ICT) were bestowed on the 173rd. I don’t think that makes for good military sense, nor did it improve moral. What if we had actually went into combat when the Chinese crossed the Laotian border? We would have gone into combat in Vietnam as the 503rd ICT. I see nothing substantially gained by the Army changing the unit designation from the 503rd ICT, to the 173rd.
Sorry, but I agree with Bill Calhoun as I think that every combat fighting unit should retain their identity at all costs.
John R.