Colonel William A. Phillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.

German article

The German page is remarkably longer and more informative than this! Is there any chance we can translate it? (And by "we", I mean "someone else". I don't read German.)Phiwum 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone translate it, please stop at beginning of WW2 period. I'm working there at the time, so u would have to translate again if i changed the part. Regards, John N. 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have started working on it (first couple paras done). John N - are you working this on the .de site or also working on trans? Bridesmill 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on .de (I work on the book Paratrooper: Gen. James M. Gavin by Michael T. Booth and Duncan Spencer). So I am translating but not from a Wikipedia and I haven't that much time to write the same in the english Wikipedia (my english isn't that good anyway). Kind Regards an best wishes, John N. 12:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Eeek, as I'm working on the translation - given that the German piece is tanslated from the English, does anyone have access to the Booth & Spencer book who would be willing to work straight from that? prob faster (& more accurate) than the double translation. Bridesmill 21:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, started translation on some selected bits as the work seems to have dropped off a bit. --MarcoLittel 11:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to translate it all until the 1st half of the Sicily campaign. The german article starts to trail off into extremely detailed and contraadictory statements, I'm not sure what to make of this. I'll try to condense this a abit, and look for resolving the contradictions.--MarcoLittel 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a terrific job. I would just caution you slightly that this is an article about General Gavin, not the exploits of the 82nd Airborne Division in WW2. A lot of the combat history can be condensed in this article or cited by reference to articles such as Operation Husky rather than being repeated here. DMorpheus 16:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've just added some bits that can be condensed. Will finish translating this section then remove the bits without gavin's exploits. The German bit looks like they just copied a lot of the book?--MarcoLittel 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify why my translated bit about Italian operations was removed?--MarcoLittel 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German text

Dumping this here prior to translation Andreas 10:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:James M. Gavin/German text. -- John N. 12:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've searched for Images of Gavin for several months and found an collection at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usamhi/ (Research Catalogs → fill in "James M. Gavin" → several hits, e.g. "photograph collection"). The Army Heritage & Education Center is located at 950 Soldiers Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013-5021. I would order the stuff but the only way to receive it is to take a look at Carlisle for it, which is impossible for me. Would be great if someone could do it for me, or find someone else to do it and to ask for, wheather the stuff is in the PD or the GNU FDL. Regards, John N. 12:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age on arrival at West Point

I'm confused by the statement that Gavin put on his application for West Point that he was 21, not 18, since he was too young to apply. Most applicants to West Point are, in fact, 17 or 18 years old. George B. McClellan was accepted at West Point at 14 in 1842, with our article on him stating "the academy having waived their normal minimum age of 16." Currently, "Each candidate must: be 17 but not yet 23 years of age by July 1 of year admitted." [1] So, I don't see why being 18 would be a hurdle. --Habap 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement I mistranslated from the German Wikipedia page of General Gavin. Fixed, thanks for the pointing out.--MarcoLittel 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the M113 should be added to this page

sence Gavin desined it


(Abramsgavin 06:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Baloney. DMorpheus 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he designed it, then why isn't there one in any of the photos of him during his time
as Army Chief Of Research and Development? The only thing in the back ground of all
photos are models of rockets and missiles.
RoySgtscoutsout (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since common knowledge about the invention of the M113 by Gen. Gavin is sparse, I wrote this paragraph, which I will insert into the article:

General James M. Gavin conceived an entirely-new form of warfare in the late-1940s: The Air-Mechanized formation, which he proposed in the 1947 book, "Airborne Warfare". The lessons learned in WWII brought Gavin to the conclusion that future airborne regiments needed to be both mechanized and armored. After having worked his way up through the ranks to the position of Army Research Chief, and there he established a requirement for one of the vehicles he conceived in his book "Airborne Warfare": an armored, tracked, air-droppable Universal Carrier. This requirement crystallized as the AAM/PVF (Airborne Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle). Two competitors were submitted for the requirement; the T113, featuring an alluminum alloy hull, and the T117, which was basically the same vehicle as the T113, but with a steel hull. The T113 won the competition, and - with some minor modifications - was fielded a few years later as the M113. Thanks to its light weight and robust construction, the M113 was the first airborne infantry fighting vehicle to be parachuted into combat by the US Army in Operation Just Cause in Panama, 1989/90. Generally, M113s are capable of both LAPES (low altitude parachute extraction system) and LVAD (low velocity air drop) operations. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been established that Gavin didn't "invent" the M113. Its design may have been influenced by his ideas, but at any rate the technical description of a vehicle is amiss in a biographic article. BansheeOne (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may cut down on the technical description, but I think it is already limited to a minimum, and that minimum is absolutely necessary in order to understand why General Gavin envisioned it and pushed its development: It is an airborne vehicle which offers mobility and protection to the paratroopers on the ground. This should be clear to the reader from reading the article - a bare link to the M113 page would not make the connection and General Gavin's motivation clear enough. I will reinsert the paragraph into the article and I call on you to refrain from removing it. You are welcome to rephrase it, if you think it has to be rewritten. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin did not "push" the development of the M113 either. He formulated an operational requirement (among many others), to which the industry answered with several designs, of which one was chosen. Unless you can provide a serious source that shows Gavin was breathing down the necks of FMC when they worked on it, this has no place whatsoever here. And by "serious source" I don't mean the website of some guy who was thrown out of the Marines, became a parachute rigger with an US Army Reserve unit and declared himself "director" of a "studies group" that is a one-man web show advocating all sorts of weird stuff including UFO research. Wikipedia is no platform for the complexes of an individual who has been banned from every single English-language military discussion board on the net for making up stuff about Gavin and the M113 as well as lying about being a Special Forces combat veteran. This baloney has been painstakingly debated, exposed and purged on both the English and German M113 and Gavin pages before. No need to introduce it yet again. BansheeOne (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Gavin did not "push" the development of the M113 either. He formulated an operational requirement (among many others), to which the industry answered with several designs, of which one was chosen."

LOL. If that ain't pushing its development, then I dunno what it is. The designs of the two prototypes, one made of steel and one of aluminum, were identical, except for their material. But if you don't like the word "push" you can substitute it with "drive", "bump-start", "push-start" or "kick-start" or something to that effect. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional items that are a bit dubious on your post.
* The "new" type of warfare you attribute to Gen. Gavin had been worked on by several other countries as early as the 1930s. (See Flying tanks and Flying tank articles. Note that this does not include WWII vehicles like the US M22 Locust or the British Tetrarch, which were built strictly to be deployed by gliders.) In reality, he was pushing the US to fund the expansion of US airborne forces based on existing capabilities and tactics.
It was a new type of warfare for the US Army - some isolated precedents do not change the picture. I dunno why you bring up the failed concept of "flying tanks", either - it has nothing to do with anything Gavin envisioned. He was a realist, not a dreamer. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gen. Gavin's concept of the "Kiwi" was similar to the gliders the US used in WWII. The only significant change was his idea to deploy a mechanized force, instead of a mostly infantry.Vstr (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* I have seen references to the M551 Sheridan being air dropped into Operation Just Cause, but I have not seen one about the M113. I know the vehicle was there, but that does not mean it was air dropped in.
The M113 is definitely designed to be airdropped, and it's got all the necessary certifications of both US Army and Air Force, obtained in the required test procedures. So it has been airdropped indeed, though I couldn't find a reference as to Operation Just Cause right now. The M551 Sheridan however, which should also be mentioned in Gavin's article, since General Gavin played the same decisive role in its development as was the case with the M113, has been airdropped in the same Panama conflict. The M551 has a lot in common with the M113, and both vehicles were designed to complement each other. The M551 Sheridan is a light weight, full tracked, diesel powered armored reconnaissance/airborne assault vehicle. It is capable of amphibious operation and can be transported and airdropped by heavy assault glider or cargo aircraft. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vehicles' capabilities are irrelevant to this article. You originally claimed that the M113 was air dropped into Panama. Neither of us have found any reference to back this up.Vstr (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* The M113s used in Operation Just Cause were armored personal carriers, and not infantry fighting vehicles. These are separate classifications. Granted, there are some M113 variants that are IFVs, but the US did not use any of them in this operation.Vstr (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are a lot of true IFV variants of the M113, like the Egyptian EIFV, the Turkish FNSS with its fully stabilized turret and autocannon, the Netherland's YPR, the Australian M113AS, the Canadian T-LAV, etc.
I would however classify an M113 with ACAV configuration, as it was used in Vietnam and Panama, as an IFV, too - at least it's something in between a pure APC and an IFV, with its .50 caliber with gun-shield and cupola in front, and two 7.62mm with gun-shields aft. That's some massive firepower, and you can engage three targets all around the vehicle at the same time. Modern IFVs are at a real disadavantage there, since they have to engage one target after another, giving RPG squads ample time to assault the vehicle. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of these, including the M113 ACAV, were used in Operation Just Cause. Therefore, onlt the M113 armored personal carrier was used. The rest does not apply to an article on Gen. GavinVstr (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh ? General Gavin was the "father" of the M113 (as Army R&D chief, he personnally specified the requirements for it and oversaw its development) - regardless of their use in any speicific operation, or modification (ACAV was invented by the South Vietnamese Army, by the way). -- Alexey Topol (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

XXX Corps' objective

Hello!

In the section about Operation Market Garden, last sentence of the first paragrafe: "Next to the Airborne divisions, the British XXX Corps was to advance along the 'Corridor' to their objective - Arnhem."

Their objective was not Arnhem, but the Zuider Zee to the north of Arnhem. Ref: http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR775/MR775.chap8.pdf Page 104.

RoySgtscoutsout (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential run?

Did he run for president, or was he the subject of a draft movement to run? A pin on ebay suggests one or the other. Шизомби (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity in text

From 'Along the Merderet'... "destroying several tanks on the La Fière causeway." Who did the destroying - the German armoured force, or the US bazookas and anti-tank gun? Unclear (to me) as written - but I don't mean to undermine the great work of the previous writers with my feeble pedantry. Notreallydavid (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate me

I tip my (British, non-military) hat emphatically to the members of the inaugural Gavin Squad. Not all awards are worth having - theirs certainly is. None the less, I think their names are a little tangential here. Does anyone agree? Notreallydavid (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sourced, so feel free to make it go away. Even if it was sourced, it's a bit WP:COATRACKish to me. Rklawton (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quibbles

The article cuts off abruptly between Sicily and Normandy, and then says nothing about what Gavin did in Europe after Market Garden. Also, confusingly says that Market Garden was his first combat command. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are entire paragraphs that detail battles and unit histories that make no mention whatsoever of Gavin. Also, there is nothing about his promotions to Brigadier General or Major General - a massively important part his story given he was the youngest American Major General alive at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.77.71.222 (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And weirdly the article avoids all mention of the 82nd's participation in the Battle of Hurtgen Forest in February 1945 (when the battle had already been going on hopelessly and at staggering cost to the US Army since September 1944, with twelve US divisions chewed to pieces for no gain) or of Gavin's trenchant post-war comments in his memoirs on the complete futility and pointlessness of that battle. Can't think why. Gavin was the only divisional commander to question the rationale of the whole thing, which is much to his credit, whatever may be said of his philandering or his critical failure to take the Waal road bridge at Nijmegen, the principal divisional objective in Market Garden. The article claims that 'The 504th took the bridge,' but they didn't. They took the rail bridge hundreds of yards downstream and were still moving along the bank when the tanks of the British Grenadier Guards took the road bridge. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another quibble: the infobox picture supposedly shows Gavin, in general's uniform, in '1964', when he was a civilian some years retired from the army, and the model missiles behind him are 1950s equipment -- the thin one is clearly the Corporal, a 1952 weapon that was being retired by 1964. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

external link?

Would an interview with transcript with James Gavin from 1986 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_B940FAB835CD4977B414E2EE27D1013E (I have a conflict of interest; otherwise I would add it myself.) Mccallucc (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James M. Gavin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)  OK Jim.henderson (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section on the so called failure to Nijmegen Bridge needs credible source. I will remove it based upon the fact he was ordered to not to make any attempt to proceed towards Nijmegen until the Groesbeek Heights had been secured, I have numerous sources and referred this action Jacob805 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_M._Gavin