Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Discrepancies with published divisional campaign credits

Discussion in 'WW2|ORG - WWII Open Resource Group' started by marneman, Oct 22, 2021.

  1. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Former dogface soldier of the 3d Infantry Division here. Doing some research for a military-history related project I'm working on and while I have found various CMH publications to be of enormous value, I've come across something that is either incorrect, or completely confounding me. I'm really hoping one of my fellow researchers here might have some guidance!

    Short version: The 77th Infantry Division seems to have different campaign credits across multiple CMH publications. I've reached out to the CMH (U.S. Army Center of Military History), but have not yet heard back from them. They say they are understaffed right now because of COVID, so who knows.

    In the online combat chronicles section of the CMH site, they are given campaign credit for the Western Pacific, Ryukyus, and Southern Philippines, and campaigns, but with no arrowhead devices for any of them

    However, in another publication by the CMH (the classic "Armies, Corps, Divisions, and Separate Brigades", CMH Pub 60-7), they are given credit for the Western Pacific, Ryukyus, and Leyte campaigns, and the Leyte campaign has an arrowhead device.

    So the campaigns themselves are in conflict, as is the assignment of the arrowhead device.

    Now, I know the Combat Chronicles uses data taken from "The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States", published in 1950 by the U.S. Government Printing Office. And CMH Pub 60-7 was published in 1999. So one 5 years after the war ended (fresher), and the other 54 years after (perhaps additional info came to light or changes were made?).

    So, I consulted (what should be) the one true primary source document, which is the campaign register (DA PAM 672-1).

    The campaign register shows: Western Pacific, Ryukyus, and Leyte as the campaigns, so I assume those are correct (or at least were at the time), and that the Combat Chronicles/Army Almanac may be in error there. It also shows several assault landings associated with those campaigns, with some caveats. This document only exists at this point as a bunch of scanned pages, but this is what the encoding of the all-important column 5 looks like for the 77th Infantry Division's campaigns.

    • A - Yakabi Shima, 26 Mar 45, WD GO 109-46, Det, Hqs only
    • A - Zamami Shima, 26 Mar 46, Det, Hqs Special Troops, MP Platoon only
    • A - Geruma Shima, 26 Mar 45, WD GO 109-46, 1st Info & Hist Svc, Team C and Det, Hq & Hq Btry only
    • A - Hokaji Shima, 26 Mar 45, WD GO 109-46, Det, Hqs Spec Trps, CIC Det. only
    • A - Ie Shima, l6 Apr 45, WD GO 109-46, 1st Info and Hist Svc, Team C; Det, Hqs Co and Det, Hqs only; See roster in Office of The Adjutant General
    • A - Ormoc, Leyte, 7 Dec 44. WD GO 109-46, Band; Hqs, Special Troops; Hq & Hq Co & Med Det; Det; Military Police Platoon and Det, Hq & Hq Btry, Div Arty, only.
    Keeping in mind that arrowhead devices apply to individual ribbon display, as well as on unit campaign streamers, as applicable....

    The way I read it above, only members of the subordinate units in italics would be eligible to wear the arrowhead device for an assault landing at Leyte (and I suppose the other campaigns related to the other assault landing entries above). So why does the entire division reflect an arrowhead device for the Leyte campaign streamer in CMH Pub 60-7?

    Sorry this is a long post, but I can't seem to find an answer to this online anywhere. Thanks so much for any guidance!
     
  2. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    The War Department GO has precedence, everything else is later errors, probably in an effort to simplify the account for the general public.

    Rock of the Marne!
     
    chibobber likes this.
  3. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thanks for the response, Richard, and Rock of the Marne, indeed! Or in my regimental parlance, "We Pierce!".

    I figured as much, but I gotta say, trying to wade through the various search sites run by the U.S. government to find copies of those old General Orders is a royal pain in the butt lol. The Army Publishing Directorate seems to only go back to 1947 (link below). Ugh! Are you aware of where I might be able to find PDFs etc of older GOs?

    Army Publishing Directorate

    Just saw the book links in your signature - will have to give those a look!
     
  4. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
  5. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    1-64 Armor? My old boss, Nick Krawciw, commanded the 3d until he was medically retired in 1991, but I never served with the division.

    Those are the GO you need to look at. AGO 1947-23 is "BATTLE HONORS UNITS CREDITED WITH ASSAULT LANDINGS", 1947-06, 07, 09, 21, 27, 28 also deal with Battle Honors, but each one typically is for a unit. AGO 1948-29 began the series of Battle Credits lists and includes the first Leyte list. Ardennes-Alsace was expanded and revised in 1948-63 and Assault Landings was expanded and revised in 1948-72. AGO 1950-56 revised and expanded Anzio, as well as other Battle and Assault Landings credits. This iste actually has a better identified listing of the PDFs you would want to look at. us army general orders AGO-

    Thanks!
     
    Biak likes this.
  6. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Actually, I was in 3-64 Armor. I was in Schweinfurt, W. Germany back in the 80s. 2-64 Armor was with us there as well. The "We Pierce" is shared across all of the battalions with that regimental afiliation (we all wear the same crest).

    Krawciw. Wow, that's a name I haven't heard in over 30 years! I had the chance to shake his hand once in '88 during REFORGER/CERTAIN CHALLENGE. Not sure if you know this or not, but he passed away a few weeks ago. :(


    I'll definitely take a look. Thanks for the info on updates. That is what I was afraid of .... I'm looking at original GOs, and there were later amendments made to them. Thanks a ton!
     
  7. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Perhaps you can clarify one other tidbit for me. You often see in the GOs where you'll see the division name, along with a bunch of division-level components (band, detachments, MPs, arty, etc.). Am I correct in the assumption that is what assigns the campaign/battle streamer to the division colors (especially since the subordinate units like infantry regiments and the like are listed separately under their own entry)? I assume the individual divisional components listed are the ones that make those who served in those components eligible to wear the arrowhead (but the division as a whole would get one on their streamer).
     
  8. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    Yeah, I heard the news from Chris Lawrence, who took over as President of TDI when Nick retired. I knew and worked with Nick at TDI from around 1996-2006. One highlight was when I accompanied him to Kiev for business. He was a wonderful guy.

    Yes, but as far as I know that is the complete collection, so you should be able to trace through them.
     
  9. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    I suspect that may be true, but confirming it would be problematic since you would have to get into the GO that established the rules for granting campaign credit. It could account for a few anomalies identified over the years where a division received campaign credit because the headquarters opened at such and such a place and such and such a time...but no combat units of the division were engaged. I've always thought of them as courtesy campaign credits.
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  10. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hey Richard (or anyone else), another quick question for you. Putting this here for the benefit of others, as it relates to the campaign register.

    I'm trying to figure out what the parentheses mean in the campaign register:

    upload_2021-11-10_10-46-20.png

    You'll note that in this example, the campaign codes for Naples-Foggia and Southern France are in parentheses. I don't see any indication of what that means in the introductory text in DA PAM 672-1, so I'm not sure. Does this mean it was amended to add those? Or perhaps rescinded?

    Thanks in advance for any guidance!
     

    Attached Files:

  11. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    I should add, off to the right, in the last column, the "R" (remarks) state the following for those 2 campaigns in parentheses, but I'm not sure what to make of it.

    upload_2021-11-10_11-3-13.png
     
  12. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    896
    It looks like just in those two campaigns that the attached Medical, Band, and Chaplain were given credit with the HQ Special Troops. I don't know why. Does the division Medical Battalion have credit for those two campaigns? Is the Division Band listed separately? Sort of odd they felt they needed to make a distinction.
     
  13. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, the band is listed separately. I guess the parentheses in the campaign credit numbers just indicates that there are notes for those off to the right.

    Here is the full entry:

    upload_2021-11-18_11-0-30.png
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2021
    Slipdigit likes this.
  14. marneman

    marneman New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Also, I see the same sort of pattern with other divisions as well, where the division will have a few campaign credits, but divisional components will have more than the actual division. On the surface, I get what it means, but it doesn't really make much sense.

    When you look on page 388 of the "Armies, Corps, Divisions, and Separate Brigades" publication from CMH, you see the following, which I believe might correspond to the campaign credits for HHC of the 36th, but I haven't cross-referenced them. If that is true, I'm not really sure what to go by lol.

    EDIT: Just noticed the additional text in the image below about HHC also being entitled to other credits. I've no clue. I've not gone through all of the General Orders to try and zero in on things ... those things are horrible to sift through.

    upload_2021-11-19_13-4-23.png
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2021

Share This Page