Wikipedia

Talk:6th Marine Division (United States)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Lineagegeek in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Unit Awards & Campaign credit edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I undid the last edit by @YahwehSaves: - but not technically as I didn't just undo it, I also edited it to incorporate some of Y.S.'s changes and some other changes- starting out by "undoing" it I just felt was the quickest and easiest way to start making my edit.

As for the A-P CM, I believe in my earlier edits I confused the 6th Marines with the 6th Marine Division. According to NAVPERS 15,790 only the Divisional HQ is eligible for a bronze star. Of course, most WWII members will have additional stars depending on which sub-unit they were part of.

Looking into the NUC's, they are specific to the mentioned sub-units (the 4th & 22nd Marine Regiments). We don't mention other unit awards of those sub-units (ie the Army PUCs of the 4th), so why mention them at all? Just save all the confusion and get rid of it entirely from this page and leave it to the pages of those units.

As for other parts of the edit I undid: China was not occupied by US units (at least not officially). Other minor parts were just worded oddly, so I re-did them.

How's it look now? Gecko G (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sixth Division combat marines get or can get service stars (campaign stars), and CARs for being combatants. The Service Ribbons section should be dropped if its not that necessary. The NAVPERS 15,790 is 1953 and I didn't see G's Division's HQ's only bronze star or it listing the 5 conditions for the ACM which replaced the ADSM which was for active duty in or outside USA (after Dec. 7, 1941 active duty marines can get both the ACM and the APCM for their service in both theaters without being 12 months in either place); ACM under condition 3. The Six site (and elsewhere) does shows 2 stars on their APCM, they ought know (* Assault and Occupation of Okinawa, April 1 - June 30, 1945 and * China Service, Oct. 11, 1945 to March 26, 1946). Japanese (in China) formally surrendered to Sixth Divisin commander Gen Shepherd at Tsingtao on Oct 20, 1945 (Sixth landed there on Oct 11, 45) and Sixth (was officially inactivated 3/26/46) was occupying Tsingtao, China according to USMC history on China. Most Six Division marines are combatants and are entitled to the CAR whether they applied later for it or not and most are entitled to China Service Medal (only if Okinawa WIA's were in APCM area after Sept 3, 1945) whether they had to apply to get it after they were discharged in 1945 or 46, or not. Same with the ACM. YahwehSaves (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@YahwehSaves: As I mentioned, most of those who were part of the 6th MarDiv in WWII will have stars on the APCM for being part of sub-units (ie the 4th, 15th, 22nd, or 29th Marine Regiments, or the 6th Tank Battalion, or etc., etc.), but not for specifically being part of the 6th Division - asides form the aforementioned HQ guys, which by the way is on page 149 of the 1953 NAVPERS (ie see here) thus such stars does not belong on this page but rather the relevant pages of the specific sub-units.
I'm not sure what your point is in mentioning the CAR on yet another page - how about finishing the discussions on any of the myriad of other pages if there's something your still confused about, rather than splintering the discussion yet further?
The ACM is not a DoN medal, but rather a DoD medal, so you need to look beyond the NAVPERS for that one. The criteria are laid out in Title 32, § 578.80. Though it's also summarised starting on page 65 of the current DoDM 1348.33 (in Vol.3), or section AP4.1.2.43, begining on page 144 of the 1996 version of DoDM 1348.33 (oddly, It's not in the 1990 version). For the Navy, information of Stars for it can be found on page 63 of NAVPERS.
For the bit about the ACM criteria #3, such time still had to be within the boundaries of the American Theater (as laid out in Title 32, § 578.80 - and repeated in NAVPERS, amongst other places). The 6th was formed in the Solomon's, went to Okinawa, then Guam and then China, and was disbanded in China. When did it ever enter the geographic boundaries of the American Theater?
As for there being 2 stars on the APCM ribbon on the 6th site- that page also has a star on the PUC, and other issues with that particular page (as has been brought up in other past discussions of ours) at that otherwise good site. What other sources (ie "elsewhere") are you refering to? Again, I refer you back to NAVPERS.
For the China Service Medal, I agree (it's even in NAVPERS on page 219).
As for removing the ribbons from the page entirely, why? I believe it is the norm on other US unit pages to have either that or campaign streamers, but I'm not sure if there's a specific MOS on that - we could ask at the MILHIST page if you want? (Side note/clarification- I agree that the MoH ribbon was out of place and not needed)
As for whether or not they were "occupying" Tsingtao (specifically), it sounds like you have a source (what's this "USMC history on China" that you mentioned?). I don't know much about it, and if whatever that source is say's otherwise then ok, but it sounds to me like a confusion with the earlier German (Kiautschou Bay concession) and/or Japanese occupations.
Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tsingtao "Occupation" edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should the 6th Division's service at Tsingtao be stated as "Occupation"? (branched off the above discussion)

I've been looking into it. The Marine Corps, Navy, and Department of Defense, all do not consider the service of forces in China after WWII as Occupation nor Occupation duty. Further, it was clear that the Chinese were (theoretically) in full control

However, there are various sources refering to the 6th's time in Tsingtao as occupation. Namely:

Gen. Shepherd himself refered to it as occupation duty (see the above mentioned Sixth Marine Division source by Stockman), while still twice refered to their mission as assisting the Chinese, namely: "to assist local authorities in maintaining order.... and to assist the Chinese."

Other sources, such as Part V North China Marines in - History of U.S. Marine Corps Operation in World War II, Volume V- Victory and occupation, by Benis M. Frank & Henry I. Shaw, Jr., 1968, Historical Branch, G-3 Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (transcription also available here) is careful not to refer to it as Occupation duty, but does occassionaly use the word "occupation".

So while the 6th's service in Tsingtao was not officially "Occupation duty" (ie it would not qualify for occupation credit, there does seem to be more than enough sources that it could be refered to as "Occupation of Tsingtao". But does doing so give the wrong impression (ie is not NPOV)? What would be the best way to proceeded here?

Gecko G (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okinawa casualty numbers edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion

The article say's The 6th Marine Division had suffered 2,662 Marines and Navy corpsmen killed in action and 7,470 Marines and Navy corpsmen wounded in action.[1][2]

That 1st source say's nearly 1700 KIA or DoW and >7400 wounded for all of the Battle of Okinawa. 2nd source has 2662 KIA or wounded, and a further 1289 evacuated from exhaustion or Battle fatigue but is stated to only be for Sugar Loaf Hill. Clearly, these numbers do not match up so I'm moving this bit to the Talk page until further sources can be found. Gecko G (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Stockman, page 16, has for Okinawa "400 officers and 7,822 enlisted men were either killed or wounded. ... Not included in the above figure are men lost due to non-battle casualties, sickness, or combat fatigue" This seems more reliable, but it lumps wounded in with KIA & DoW. Gecko G (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

For now I've mentioned the conflicting numbers in a footnote in the article, but if anyone has either better sources, or a better idea of how to list such conflicting info (ie rather than a footnote), please chime in. Thanks, Gecko G (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

just realised I have another one: Frank and Shaw has an appendix with Marine Casualties numbers. For the 6th at Okinawa it has:

  • KIA: 27 Officers, 1,337 Enlisted (so 1,364 total)
  • DOW: 18 off & 274 enltd (292 total)
  • Wounded: 388 off & 7,041 enltd (so 7,429 total)
  • missing in action & presumed dead: 1 officer, 10enlisted (so 11 total)
  • Total: 443 officers, 8,662 enlisted (so 9,105 total)

but a footnote cautions that many of the DOW were also double counted as wounded. Further, the sum's don't match for officers- 434 officers vs. 443 (and note- there is a misteak in the transcripted version, the number in the bottom right corner, the Grand Total is not 1,990 but 18,990 in the original). Gecko G (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

and found another source, which also quotes an "official report" but gives it's own different info, namely the Carlton source which I've added.

Carlton, on page 123, quotes the official report as the division "had lost in killed and wounded 7,822 enlisted men and 400 officers of which 1,622 were killed- 77 officers and 1,545 enlisted men"

In the Appendix's of Carlton, Chart No. 1 has 10,925 (including 576 on May 16th alone), broken down as 5,706 WIA and 1,337 Total deaths but Chart No.5 has 10,884 total casualties, broken down in Chart No.6 as 1,337 dead, 5,706 Wounded in Action, 3,841 others, for the period April 29-June 25.

After all these depressing and horrifying numbers, I'm afraid I'm going to lose my interest in further working on this article. The Sugar Loaf Hill bit deserves to be expanded into it's own article (It's current a redirect to Battle of Okinawa, but Sugar Loaf is hardly mentioned there. However, a full article is beyond my abilities, time, and especially my wiki-skill level. I'll try to at least expand it into it's own paragraph on this article. Gecko G (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 6th Marine Division (United States). 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:

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) 11:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sixth was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sugar Loaf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:6th_Marine_Division_(United_States)&oldid=1197084284"