Just wanted to share the crests from the units I was assigned during my time in the army, along with the associated patches. The crest from the 2-107th Cavalry dates back to pre-WW2 and is still used by the 107th Cavalry
38th Infantry Division
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Snydercrew/4973fdc6e4213_36421n.jpg
2-107th Cavalry (Air)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Snydercrew/aausaacarcatkar1145.jpg
1-137th Assault Helicopter (Air Assault)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Snydercrew/BQlDegEGkKGrHqZigEzNPgcf1BMDhE4Fcg_35-1.jpg
18th Aviation Brigade (Airborne)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Snydercrew/P_25910808_2180453.jpg
1-131st Aviation Regiment (Airborne)
(this was the last official battalion to to exist in the 18th Aviation BDE)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b146/Snydercrew/CDB53QCGkKGrHqNl0Ez00Gyc8BNNLYpTn2_35.jpg
Hi Michael.
Very cool badges. Aside from the division insignia, they apply specifically to the parent regiments right, not just the individual battalions (though regiments are no longer really operational tactical elements)?
It depends on the organization and the polices they have in place, I believe.
Regiments/Brigades usually have different crests than the battalions that are under them. Each battalion tends to have it’s own independent identification in the way of unit crests. In my experience, everyone attached to the 38th Infantry Division wore the "CY" patch, BUT I have seen some battalion level elements that have their own patches outside of the rest of the regiment or above. Though, traditionally, everyone keeps the same patch, just different crests. To the best of my knowledge.
When I was assigned the the 36th Combat Aviation Brigade, it was composed of 9 different battalions from all over the U.S.. Each battalion had their own patches and crests that differed from the Brigade level, but when they were issued combat patches for being overseas, all of the battalions received the Brigade patch instead of their own unit patch.
As for the regimental thing, I’m not really sure these days. The military keeps doing realignments and restructuring of the organizations I can’t keep up now that I am out. Regimental level organizations can be tactically viable if that is how they are organized, but I don’t know how many of those are really left. When I was at Fort Hood, the 4th Infantry Division deployed to Iraq—all of it…something like 10,000 soldiers deployed at once, so I can see a smaller regimental size deploying tactically.
What I meant by modern :USA: regiments not being viable tactical elements is because all command staff is bundled up in Brigade level elements and higher, so regimental echelons pretty much exist only on paper (the regimental affiliation system to me seems kinda’ pointless as it currently exists). So far as I know, you will never see a "regimental commander." You will see a battalion command and a brigade command, but not regiment… if they do claim regimental command, it’s because the battalion has no siblings and poses itself as a one batt regiment (but does not function as a real regiment operationally because again, it only has battalion staff).
I understand what you are saying about everyone in a division eventually sporting the division patch on deployment. This tradition probably stems from the fact that modern divisions were the most sustainable deployment units and anything smaller typically couldn’t really handle it’s own logistics for a long term occupational deployment. In peacetime, I’m guessing you won’t won’t see as much patch swapping that probably happen due to ad hoc rotational needs.
I have always suspsected the fact that the US Army Order of Battle looks like it was designed by a three year old is probably on purpose.
There are a few "regiments" that still exist (at least during my tenure), but is actually a brigade level that kept the lineage of the regiment name. These days I can’t keep up with all of the levels and structures they have put into place. I was aviation (Black Hawk mechanic/crew chief) and I could barely keep track of the restructuring of the aviation corps 
I know the British are still heavy into regimental units, but they have a smaller and more organized military structure.
Now that is some interesting news, brigade staff passing itself off as a regiment; this would be acceptable in my reasoning.
Sounds to me like you DO have a better understanding of it than even some field grade officers.
The unit heraldry thing, thanks to you and others (and Google), I am starting to understand why and how it is applied the way it is in the US. I was never regimentally affiliated and was always dissappointed when questioning those who were affiliated about it; no one seemed to understand it or even care.
The regimental affiliation thing in the U.S. Army is more than a little artificial, although guys who are affiliated to a regiment with which they served in combat take it fairly seriously.
In both the British and American armies, the battalion has become the basic maneuver unit, and both group them into brigades regardless of regimental designation. So you could have a British brigade made of 1st Bn Staffordshire Cavalry, 1st Bn Gloucester Light Infantry, and 3rd Bn King’s Grenadier Dragoons (all made up names, of course), just as you could have an American brigade with the 3-77 Infantry, 4-33 Cav, and 6-17 Armor (which may or may not be made up names). The difference in the British case is that the parent regiment actually exists for administrative and training purposes, as well as to preserve history, while in most cases the American regiment exists only for the historical connection. Moreover, enlisted soldiers in the British Army usually tend to serve with the same regiment, and even the same battalion, throughout their careers (except when they’re on staff or training assignments), while American soldiers do not, unless they serve only a single enlistment.
This didn’t occur because of malicious intent on anyone’s part, but because the U.S. Army found it more important to have all battalions of the same kind approximately interchangeable, which could most easily be achieved by rotating individuals from one unit to another to balance things out, rather than to maintain battalions as long-term coherent organizations. It was made easier by the fact that unit continuity had already been broken when the Army was demobilized after World War II without any particular attention being paid to the fact that some regiments had longer history than others.
Thanks Joe, your explanation further illuminates things.
Well there also seems to be a different recuiting policy, in the British Army one enlist in a specific Regiment or Corps (like the Royal Regiment of Scotland or the Royal Army Medical Corps, actual units), but in the USA one enlist in the US Army, not in a specific Regiment of Corps.
Here in Sweden, the Regiment was a historical tactical unit. Many Regiments tracing their origins back to the 17th Century. With the introduction of Conscription in 1901 Regiments become training and mobilization units, but the historical connection to geographical areas (Landskap) was keept in as much that conscripts from the same area tended to be sent the same Regiment.
After World War Two, the Regiment was in the mobilized Order of Battle replaced by the Brigade (constisting of Battalions of infantry, armour, artillery and support). In peacetime however the Regiment remained the most visible military institution an hundred of thousand of young Swedish men recieved their military instruction here at units bearing the names such as K3 Livregementets husarer (Hussars of the Life Regiment, 3rd Cavalry), P10 Södermanlands regemente (Södermanland Regiment, 10th Armoured) or I3 Livregementets grenadjärer (Grenadiers of the Life Regiment, 3rd Infantry). Altough bearing the historical Regiment title the acctual strength was after WW2 that of a Battalion. Since then Conscription has been ended and today the few remaining Regiments are purley training Units for enlisted personnel. The Battalion beeing the highest tactical unit, the Brigade/Division Structure of the Cold War Era has been done away with. Gone are also the strong local ties with the local Regiment, as the local Regiment in many instances doesn’t exist anymore. As an example only one of the three Regiments I mentioned above K3, exists today.
Joseph McMillan;90684 wrote:
So you could have a British brigade made of 1st Bn Staffordshire Cavalry, 1st Bn Gloucester Light Infantry, and 3rd Bn King’s Grenadier Dragoons (all made up names, of course), ...
I though it might be interesting to match the fictitious brigade from Joseph’s instructive answer with a real life one from the British Army’s current Orbat. So, more or less at random, 4th Mechanized Brigade is comprised of The Royal Dragoon Guards, Queen’s Royal Lancers and 1st Battalion Scots Guards (plus all its engineering, signals and logistics assets, of course). To keep this posting vaguely heraldic, I have attached a composite image of the brigade shoulder flash with, underneath, the cap badges of each regiment (in the order given), each over what I believe are the colours of the regimental stable belt.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=105&pictureid=1597
I’m a fan of the regimental identity element in TIOH armory. To me, the regiment approximates the family lineage in American society—common historical origin but currently scattered and mainly a sentimental entity.
In the usual current organization, having bits & pieces of historical regiments mixed together approximates the typical American neighborhood; and within that neighborhood (or combat team or Division) the various "regimental" arms used by the various battalions or batteries are a useful symbol of smaller-unit identity within the larger Division- or Brigade-level whole.
And it made for a more interesting collection of arms in the Brigade or Division chapel, where I typically spent 1/84th of my usual work week in ‘Nam. (for the non-vets, that’s 7x12 hours per week, plus uncompensated overtime…, with one hour each Sunday allowed for spiritual sustenance)
My opinion FWIW.
Nowadays, if you have a combat patch on your right shoulder, it will typically be a division patch and not a regimental one.
Looks like the whole patch wearing business has changed since I got out. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/army/a/combatpatch.htm
They’re always messing with something! (You likely remember hearing that "there’s three ways—the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way!")_
Regimental insignia (arms and/or crest) usually aren’t (or at least weren’t) worn as shoulder patches—they were the little metal badges (maybe now embroidered for fatigues?) worn as collar or sometimes cap (beret) insignia. Shoulder patches usually are (or were) higher-level organizations - Division or sometimes Brigade, or special groups like MAC-V (Military Assistance Command - Vietnam) etc.; and more often than not, they weren’t particularly heraldic, other than as badges (not arms). There were some exceptions of course.
Michael F. McCartney;90949 wrote:
They’re always messing with something! (You likely remember hearing that "there’s three ways—the right way, the wrong way, and the Army way!")_
Regimental insignia (arms and/or crest) usually aren’t (or at least weren’t) worn as shoulder patches—they were the little metal badges (maybe now embroidered for fatigues?) worn as collar or sometimes cap (beret) insignia. Shoulder patches usually are (or were) higher-level organizations - Division or sometimes Brigade, or special groups like MAC-V (Military Assistance Command - Vietnam) etc.; and more often than not, they weren’t particularly heraldic, other than as badges (not arms). There were some exceptions of course.
The most common shoulder patches during my stint were division level. Michael, that quote boils it down nicely.
