Talk:United States Army Air Corps

Split

I'll start. I support a split. I am plodding my way through the older forerunners of the USAF and re-writing the U.S. Army Air Service article now. I will move to the USAAC next, and when finished, the element regarding the current organization will be more of a footnote.--Buckboard 09:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A split seems logical; as the original USAAC and the modern AAC are two different entities. Greenshed 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

USAAC also stands for US Army Accessions Command...

Hal06 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree on split. These two vastly different organizations exist or existed years apart and only share the same name, thereby adding confusion to this page. Split them and make Wikipedia a better resource for learning about these historically unrelated topics. Jack Bethune 17:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree on split. But what do we name the article on the current AAC? Army Air Corps is already taken by the British Army AAC. Army Air Corps (US) perhaps? The article on the historical United States Army Air Corps should remain that, with a disambiguation link to the new article, since this is the name it is most known by. If we can agree on a new name, I'll go ahead and split them up, since this is a stub anyway. -- BillCJ 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - I think that USAAF and USAAC should be separate articles. The current organization is called Army Aviation or Aviation Branch and hasn't formally been anything except "aviation" since early in WWII (circa 1942) until it was formally recognized as a separate Branch (akin to Infantry and Artillery) within the United States Army in 1983. --Born2flie 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

. With the establishment of the Army Air Forces as one of three components of the Army, the Air Corps, a branch of the Army, was put under the AAF and existed as a branch until disestablished in 1947. The Air Corps was NOT the predecessor of the Army Air Forces, and the Air Corps was not renamed the Army Air Forces; both coexisted at the same time and had different missions and different insignia. The Air Corps was administrative and responsible for personnel, training and materiel. Personnel belonged to the Air Corps. The Army Air Forces was an organization coequal to the Army Ground Forces and Army Service Forces, and its mission was operational; organizations (wearing similarly designed shoulder patch insignia) belonged to the Army Air Forces. Their insignia was the shoulder patch of an ultramarine blue circle with the star and red meatball superimposed with orange-yellow wings coming up at 45 degree angles from both sides of the star. Gen “Hap” Arnold approved this insignia as the official Army Air Forces emblem, and the branch insignia continued to be worn by all those personnel assigned to the Army branch, Air Corps. Incidentally, there were other Army branches assigned to the Army Air Forces besides the Air Corps, like Engineers, Ordnance, Military Police, Quartermaster, etc. The current Army Aviation branch established in 1983 was not part of, akin to, or the successor to the Air Corps, U.S. Army or the Army Air Forces. The Army did not have an aviation branch, as such, since 1947 until the establishment of Army Aviation in 1983 - a 36 year absense. Their insignia was designed in 1983 and is similar, but not the same as, the WW II Air Corps insignia. They both have gold wings and a verticle silver propeller, however, the current Army Aviation branch insignia has pointed wings that the post WW II Army adopted as opposed to the rounded wing tips of the Air Corps and its insignia.Ironmajor (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Ironmajor

Thanx, Ironmajor. I think you'll be reassured to find that both the articles on the Air Corps and the AAF now reflect much of the information you've posted here. I appreciate the buttressing of that foundation you've added to the discussion here.--Reedmalloy (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add. My Dad, Chris Gagomiros, from Bronx, NY was Army Air Corps. Any body know him back then> I am his youngest son, E. Chris Gagomiros. dahgreek@yahoo.com Thank you.

Notice of proposed moves

A user has proposed moving Army Air Corps to Army Air Corps (disambiguation), and moving Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) back to its original location, Army Air Corps. The main discussion is at Talk:Army Air Corps#Moving to disambiguation page. - BillCJ (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed correction for shown insignia

The insignia shown on this page (roundel with red center) is incorrect. The Red "dot" should "touch" the tangent lines of the star points, and the star "legs" should touch the exterior circle, as the pictures show. Source: "Air Force Colors", Volume 1 - 1926-1942, by Dana Bell, Squadron/Signal Publications (Paper book) Lnewqban (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The roundel insignia, whether or not the red dot touches the corners of the stars or not, is NOT an insignia of the Air Corps, but, of all military aircraft of military (Army and Naval) aviation. The CORRECT insignia of the Air Corps, a branch of the Army, is the Air Corps branch brass which consists of a set of gold wings with a vertical silver prop for officers; for enlisted a set of gold wings with a gold vertical prop on a gold disk. These insignias were primarily worn on the uniform coat lapels and left collar of the shirt, and sometimes, but rarely, painted on signs. Ironmajor (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Ironmajor

Clearly the red circle is wholly within the white star, not "touching" anything, but the points should reach the edge of the roundel.--Reedmalloy (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

The assessment of this article was long overdue, an oversight, but still is rated as "start" class because the rater assessed it as "not referenced". Right. Only every paragraph sourced, using eight different major sources. Chuckles.--Reedmalloy (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reassessed to reflect the referencing.--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A general rant

The listing of all Air Corps units on March 1, 1935 was carefully done over the years to represent an orderly, readable, easily-linked snapshot of the Air Corps at a key moment in its history that was also typified the service until February 1940. IOW, something that could quickly and accurately inform the uninformed (but interested or curious) about the size, makeup, leadership, and structure of the arm. Now it is not. You meant well, but you were wrong. I once had the energy to fight this glut of arcane detailing muddying a general listing, but no longer. An encyclopedia can be a hobby, but it should not be a toy. End of rant.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you found it to be an "orderly, readable, easily-linked snapshot". I thought it to be a jumble of information. As all articles here are editable, feel free to improve it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I just did it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)