Battle of Backbone Mountain

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War / World War I / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force World War I task force World War II task force Virginia C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the US Army Institute of Hearaldry, the 116th no longer wears the 116th IBCT patch http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Heraldry/ArmyDUISSICOA/ArmyHeraldryUnit.aspx?u=3697. A D-Day anniversary message posted on facebook showed the commander of the 116th IBCT wearing the patch of the 29th Infantry Division. Also, this press release in Aug 2009 has a soldier identified as being with the 116th Brigade wearing the 29th ID patch http://vko.va.ngb.army.mil/VirginiaGuard/news/aug2009/3-116trainingex.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon b5 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Inf/116InfantryRegiment.htm/
  • In 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) on 2011-05-23 02:13:42, 404 Not Found
  • In 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States) on 2011-06-01 02:26:18, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I WOULD LIKE TO PRAISE AND COMMEND THE SOLDIERS( CELL-ROLEPLAYERS) OF THE IBCT116 THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE CPX SIM EXERCISE FOR DEMONSTRATED PROFESSIONALISM, DEDICATION,LOYALTY, AND FIGHTING SPIRIT OF THE SPIRTIT TO THE STONEWALL JACKSON BRIGADE. THE CELL OIC, OUTSTANDING STAFF, SGM, OPS SGT LEAD AND MANAGE THE BATTLEFIELD WITH OUTSTANDING TALENT OF COMBAT LEADERSHIP SKILLS, ECONOMY OF FORCE, AND OUTSTANDING MAGERIAL TOOLS, IN MY OPINION PROVIDED THIER TRAINING AUDIENCE AN EXCELLENT VISION OF THE SCENARIO. THEY WERE A STERLING EXAMPLE OF A WINNING SPIRIT AND EARNED THE MOST CONFIDENT FROM THEIR SUBORDINATES AND OBSERVERS. THE NCO'S DID A GREAT JOB IN MISSION PERFORMANCE;TIRED, FRUSTRATED, LONG HOURS,NEVER FAILED THEIR MISSION COMMITTMENT, LOYALTY TO THEIR OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS ALIKE, A STERLING EXAMPLE OF TODAY'S NCO, 'ARMY STRONG'", THEY FOUGHT THE FIGHT! THE ENLISTED EARNED MUCH CREDIT IN PERFORMANCE TASKS/ACTIONS WHICH WERE WAY ABOVE THEIR NORMAL GRADES, NEVER QUIT, DEDICATED, LOYAL, DEMONSTRATED PRIDE AND ENTHUSIASM FOR THE BRIGADE. IN CLOSING, I SALUTE THE OFFICERS, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS, AND THE ENLISTED SOLDIERS OF THE STONEWALL BRIGADE FOR THEIR DEDICATED, DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE OF DUTY IN THE FINEST FASHION, I THANK THE BRIGADE AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR THEIR SELFLESS SERVICE TO THE GREAT STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND THIS GREAT NATION, GOD BLESS AMERICA.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH YOU, AS THIS WAS A PERSONAL OBSERVATION,AS A FORMER SOLDIER° CSM FRANK G. CASTILLO (RET) US ARMY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.233.111 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I WOULD LIKE TO PRAISE AND COMMEND THE SOLDIERS( CELL-ROLEPLAYERS) OF THE IBCT116 THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE CPX SIM EXERCISE FOR THEIR DEMONSTRATED PROFESSIONALISM, DEDICATION,LOYALTY, AND FIGHTING SPIRIT OF THE STONEWALL JACKSON BRIGADE. THE CELL OIC, BATTLE CAPTAINS, SGM, OPS SGT LEAD, MANAGE THE BATTLEFIELD WITH PROVEN TALENT OF COMBAT LEADERSHIP SKILLS,AN ECONOMY OF FORCE, AND MAGERIAL TOOLS, AND IN MY OPINION PROVIDED THIER TRAINING AUDIENCE GOOD, REAL TRAINING THRU ROLEPLAYING WERE SUCCESSFUL IN PROVIDING GOOD, SOUND TRAINING TO THE TRAINING AUDIENCE. THEY WERE A STERLING EXAMPLE OF LEADERSHIP IN A COMBAT TRAINING EVIROMENT, AND WITH A WINNING SPIRIT EARNED THE CONFIDENT,RESPECT FROM THEIR SUBORDINATES. THE NCO'S DID A GREAT JOB IN MISSION PERFORMANCE;TIRED, FRUSTRATED, LONG HOURS,NEVER FAILED THEIR MISSION COMMITTMENT WITH LOYALTY TO THEIR OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS ALIKE, A STERLING EXAMPLE OF TODAY'S NCO, 'ARMY STRONG'", THEY FOUGHT THE FIGHT! THE ENLISTED EARNED MUCH CREDIT IN PERFORMANCE TASKS/ACTIONS WHICH WERE WAY ABOVE THEIR NORMAL GRADES, NEVER QUIT, DEDICATED, LOYAL, FOR THE BRIGADE. THEY ALSO A FACE SHORTAGE OF PERSONAL COMFORT OF WHICH THEY OVERV CAME IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MISSION AS THEY TRAINED IN LONG HOURS, INTENSE ACTIVITY,THEY WERE PROVEN WARRIOR! IN CLOSING, I SALUTE THE OFFICERS, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS, AND THE ENLISTED SOLDIERS OF THE STONEWALL BRIGADE FOR THEIR DEDICATED, DEMONSTRATED PERFORMANCE OF DUTY IN THE FINEST FASHION, I THANK THE BRIGADE AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR THEIR SELFLESS SERVICE TO THE GREAT STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND THIS GREAT NATION, GOD BLESS AMERICA.

THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH YOU, AS THIS WAS A PERSONAL OBSERVATION,AS A FORMER SOLDIER° CSM FRANK G. CASTILLO (RET) US ARMY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.233.111 (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have two separate articles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_Infantry_Brigade_Combat_Team_(United_States)

vs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

While the latter is clearly the page with the historical lineage and regimental affiliation, these are, in actuality the same units.

I would recommend merging the articles.

The article 116th Infantry Regiment is about the history of the parent regiment and not the brigade. The brigade history and lineage is distinct from that of the regiment as established by the United States Army Center of Military History. Additionally, the current 116th IBCT includes units not linked with the 116th parent regiment. Kges1901 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with this distinction, but the regimental article also contains an (incorrect) labeling of the current structure. Perhaps a better option will be to scrub the two to ensure the distinction is clear (as you have done some already) and replace the current organization structure with a reference to the current IBCT. Squatch347 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the clarification of 'parent unit' work for you? I wanted to keep it there since it was more detailed than that on the brigade page. Kges1901 (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that clarifies it perfectly. Thanks. Are you part of Stonewall? Squatch347 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]