HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Military/History Related Hobbies > Orders of Battle

Notices and Announcements

Orders of Battle Orders-of-battle, TO&E's, and related information on who fought where and what they brought to the battle.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 02 Aug 17, 20:17
Pruitt's Avatar
Pruitt Pruitt is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
France
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
100 Greatest Generals, 2008 Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign 
Summer Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Real Name: Richard Pruitt
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sulphur, LA
Posts: 27,429
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
This sounds more like before WWI, not WWII. After WWI, the ARNG had standing divisions (although some were incomplete), some shared between states (like 26th "Yankee" Division in New England), some in a single state (like 27th in New York and 28th in Pennsylvania).



Because the politicians refused to mobilize the ARNG, the Army decided to structure the force that the reserve components (both ARNG and USAR) would be required to fight.
It applies to both wars. The Army activated Guard units in 1940 and had a whole year to add draftees and provide equipment. One problem they ran into was providing Cavalry mounts for Guard Cavalry units. Many Guard Cavalry rented horses and these often failed an induction physical. This may be a lesser reason why so many Guard Cavalry units were converted to other roles.

In 1916 the Guard had a number of divisions called up for service on the Mexican Border. Because there was confusion and more than a little bedlam trying to get units up to strength they went as they were. There was also a lack of Artillery and Machine Guns and almost no vehicles. The States varied as to whether or not they had Divisional HQ units, Brigade or Regimental HQ units. A couple only had Battalion HQ's!

The Guard Divisional HQ units were from New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. A number of Brigade HQ's were also used from a number of states.

I have the 1984 reprint of "Composition of National Guard Divisions and Disposition of former National Guard Units".

There was a small activation of Guard units for Vietnam. Most of the Hawaiian National Guard was activated when the 25th INFDIV went to Vietnam. The Brigade stayed in Hawaii but the individuals were rotated there. The Indiana Guard had a Battalion sent (I am thinking Airborne, but my Shelby Stanton is not to hand). I may well be leaving out a unit or two. After the initial activation LBJ lost his political nerve and quit sending Guard units.

Pruitt
__________________
Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04 Aug 17, 08:26
82redleg's Avatar
82redleg 82redleg is offline
Sergeant Major
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fort Living Room
Posts: 309
82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
It applies to both wars.
The part about understrength combat units applies to both wars. The following parts about division headquarters and Ordnance and Quartermaster units does not- the Guard had fully formed and organized divisions between WW1 and WW2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
...This may be a lesser reason why so many Guard Cavalry units were converted to other roles.
Like the Regular Army Cavalry units (which were dismounted and employed as infantry), ARNG Cavalry was converted because there was not a requirement for Cavalry- certainly not for horse Cavalry. The lack of suitable mounts was not a "lesser reason" for anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
There was a small activation of Guard units for Vietnam. Most of the Hawaiian National Guard was activated when the 25th INFDIV went to Vietnam. The Brigade stayed in Hawaii but the individuals were rotated there. The Indiana Guard had a Battalion sent (I am thinking Airborne, but my Shelby Stanton is not to hand). I may well be leaving out a unit or two. After the initial activation LBJ lost his political nerve and quit sending Guard units.
Haven't read it all yet, but this monograph looks interesting and relevant.
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521559

The Indiana ARNG deployed Company D (Ranger), 151st Infantry. I believe that the only formed ARNG battalions that deployed were a couple of Field Artillery battalions, but can't reference that right now. Certainly no ARNG brigades or divisions deployed to Vietnam, although some were mobilized as you pointed out.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05 Aug 17, 13:39
shrike6's Avatar
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Corporal
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NE
Posts: 54
shrike6 is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
The part about understrength combat units applies to both wars. The following parts about division headquarters and Ordnance and Quartermaster units does not- the Guard had fully formed and organized divisions between WW1 and WW2.



Like the Regular Army Cavalry units (which were dismounted and employed as infantry), ARNG Cavalry was converted because there was not a requirement for Cavalry- certainly not for horse Cavalry. The lack of suitable mounts was not a "lesser reason" for anything.



Haven't read it all yet, but this monograph looks interesting and relevant.
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521559

The Indiana ARNG deployed Company D (Ranger), 151st Infantry. I believe that the only formed ARNG battalions that deployed were a couple of Field Artillery battalions, but can't reference that right now. Certainly no ARNG brigades or divisions deployed to Vietnam, although some were mobilized as you pointed out.
82 is essentially correct from what I know. D Co 151st Inf. was the largest NG combat unit sent to Vietnam. First I have heard about FA battalions being sent although I can't say they weren't as this section of history I haven't dived into all that deep. With that being said there were larger NG units like the 29th and 69th Inf Bde that were activated during that era. I know many of the 69th's personnel were sent to Vietnam although the unit as whole was not. I assume that happened with the 29th as well.
http://www.kansasguardmuseum.com/?page_id=2090
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05 Aug 17, 18:42
82redleg's Avatar
82redleg 82redleg is offline
Sergeant Major
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fort Living Room
Posts: 309
82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by shrike6 View Post
82 is essentially correct from what I know. D Co 151st Inf. was the largest NG combat unit sent to Vietnam. First I have heard about FA battalions being sent although I can't say they weren't as this section of history I haven't dived into all that deep. With that being said there were larger NG units like the 29th and 69th Inf Bde that were activated during that era. I know many of the 69th's personnel were sent to Vietnam although the unit as whole was not. I assume that happened with the 29th as well.
http://www.kansasguardmuseum.com/?page_id=2090
Field Artillery is a combat arms branch.

2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery, KYARNG, served in Vietnam
https://kynghistory.ky.gov/Our-Histo...etnam-War.aspx

3rd Battalion, 197th Field Artillery, NHARNG, served in Vietnam
http://digitaledition.qwinc.com/arti...0/article.html

There may have been others, but I know of these two.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05 Aug 17, 19:39
Pruitt's Avatar
Pruitt Pruitt is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
France
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
100 Greatest Generals, 2008 Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign 
Summer Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Real Name: Richard Pruitt
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sulphur, LA
Posts: 27,429
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
The part about understrength combat units applies to both wars. The following parts about division headquarters and Ordnance and Quartermaster units does not- the Guard had fully formed and organized divisions between WW1 and WW2.

*In 1917 not all states had Divisional HQ's and support units like Quartermasters. Many did have Medical units and Ammo Trains. Between the wars the various states kept alive the support units they had been converted to for WW I. Indeed there were several more divisions formed between the wars like the 43rd, 44th and 45th Divisions. The 42nd Rainbow was not kept alive. The 42nd INFDIV in WWII was formed out of non-Guard units. The 39th Division was broken up and never saw service in WW II. I don't know why. Its Infantry and Artillery units did see service.


Like the Regular Army Cavalry units (which were dismounted and employed as infantry), ARNG Cavalry was converted because there was not a requirement for Cavalry- certainly not for horse Cavalry. The lack of suitable mounts was not a "lesser reason" for anything.

*There were several Guard Cavalry units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI. Off the top of my head it was the 112th and 124th Cavalry, all from Texas. Cavalry Battalions were reduced in strength in the 20's (basically losing one Troop per Squadron) and never got them back. This is why a Cavalry unit could not replace an Infantry unit in the line. The US Army did keep Horse Cavalry alive until late in WW II. Several units never left the CONUS or were used for ceremonial purposes. Horses are expensive and require specialist medical care. Until well into the 30's forage costs were greater than gasoline costs.


Haven't read it all yet, but this monograph looks interesting and relevant.
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521559

The Indiana ARNG deployed Company D (Ranger), 151st Infantry. I believe that the only formed ARNG battalions that deployed were a couple of Field Artillery battalions, but can't reference that right now. Certainly no ARNG brigades or divisions deployed to Vietnam, although some were mobilized as you pointed out.

* The Texas Guard did have some Airborne units, but they did not see service. The Texas Guard has seen the Airborne units revive a time or two during reorganizations of the troops. Once the Texas Guard had an Armor Division (49th?, WWII size with three Infantry and three armor battalions) and an Airborne Brigade (36th?). The Texas Guard also once had an Armored Cavalry unit in the Dallas Metro (I saw it near the Red Bird Mall.
Pruitt
__________________
Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #51  
Old 05 Aug 17, 22:00
82redleg's Avatar
82redleg 82redleg is offline
Sergeant Major
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fort Living Room
Posts: 309
82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99]
I don't know why you've started responding inside the quotes, but it is making it look like I've said the things that you are saying, which is kind of sketchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
In 1917 not all states had Divisional HQ's and support units like Quartermasters. Many did have Medical units and Ammo Trains. Between the wars the various states kept alive the support units they had been converted to for WW I. Indeed there were several more divisions formed between the wars like the 43rd, 44th and 45th Divisions. The 42nd Rainbow was not kept alive. The 42nd INFDIV in WWII was formed out of non-Guard units. The 39th Division was broken up and never saw service in WW II. I don't know why. Its Infantry and Artillery units did see service.
As usual, you're obfuscating with a bunch of irrelevant data, and changing the argument. You originally claimed that the ARNG didn't have support units before WWII. I corrected that, pointing out that the ARNG had fully formed, if understrength, divisions between WWI and WWII, and now you blather on a bunch of irrelevant factoids about the formation of divisions between the wars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
...
Before WW II the Guard was composed of many understrength combat units. This was not seen as a problem because these units would recruit back up to strength and train before seeing action. Any equipment needed would be furnished by the Feds. Most states could field at least a Regiment sized combat unit. Then they would add in heavy stuff like Artillery. Only the large urban states like New York or Pennsylvania would set up Ordinance or Quartermaster units.

After WW II it was seen that some combat support units were needed and they were added. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
There were several Guard Cavalry units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI. Off the top of my head it was the 112th and 124th Cavalry, all from Texas. Cavalry Battalions were reduced in strength in the 20's (basically losing one Troop per Squadron) and never got them back. This is why a Cavalry unit could not replace an Infantry unit in the line. The US Army did keep Horse Cavalry alive until late in WW II. Several units never left the CONUS or were used for ceremonial purposes. Horses are expensive and require specialist medical care. Until well into the 30's forage costs were greater than gasoline costs.
Once again, none of this has to do with the false assertion that you originally made, about the alleged poor quality of ARNG horses being "a lesser reason" to dismount those units. First, the ARNG units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI were dismounted, and second, pretty much all, if not all, cavalry that was employed was dismounted or mechanized. It didn't have to do with the quality of the horses, it had to do with the fact that horse cavalry was outmoded, and everyone that could afford to was going 100% mechanized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
The Texas Guard did have some Airborne units, but they did not see service. The Texas Guard has seen the Airborne units revive a time or two during reorganizations of the troops. Once the Texas Guard had an Armor Division (49th?, WWII size with three Infantry and three armor battalions) and an Airborne Brigade (36th?). The Texas Guard also once had an Armored Cavalry unit in the Dallas Metro (I saw it near the Red Bird Mall.
And again, what does this have to do with anything? The discussion was about which ARNG combat units deployed to Vietnam. You posted that you thought the INARNG sent a battalion, possibly an airborne one. I clarified that it was a Ranger company, and the other combat units sent were some field artillery battalions. What does TXARNG airborne, armored, and armored cavalry have to do with that?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05 Aug 17, 23:14
Pruitt's Avatar
Pruitt Pruitt is offline
ACG Forums - General Staff
France
Distinguished Service Award ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon March Offensive 
100 Greatest Generals, 2008 Most Decisive Battle Campaign, 2008 Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign 
Summer Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C Tournament 1 and preceding Mini-Polls 
 
Real Name: Richard Pruitt
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sulphur, LA
Posts: 27,429
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+] Pruitt has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
I don't know why you've started responding inside the quotes, but it is making it look like I've said the things that you are saying, which is kind of sketchy.



As usual, you're obfuscating with a bunch of irrelevant data, and changing the argument. You originally claimed that the ARNG didn't have support units before WWII. I corrected that, pointing out that the ARNG had fully formed, if understrength, divisions between WWI and WWII, and now you blather on a bunch of irrelevant factoids about the formation of divisions between the wars.





Once again, none of this has to do with the false assertion that you originally made, about the alleged poor quality of ARNG horses being "a lesser reason" to dismount those units. First, the ARNG units that saw service in the Pacific and CBI were dismounted, and second, pretty much all, if not all, cavalry that was employed was dismounted or mechanized. It didn't have to do with the quality of the horses, it had to do with the fact that horse cavalry was outmoded, and everyone that could afford to was going 100% mechanized.



And again, what does this have to do with anything? The discussion was about which ARNG combat units deployed to Vietnam. You posted that you thought the INARNG sent a battalion, possibly an airborne one. I clarified that it was a Ranger company, and the other combat units sent were some field artillery battalions. What does TXARNG airborne, armored, and armored cavalry have to do with that?
I am reading your posts and they say one thing. You read mine and make assumptions. The post I made about support units was supposed to be read as before WWI. You read it to include the interwar years. The three new divisions were largely taken out of the divisions that were formed for WWI. To get the new divisions the Army had to create some Guard units that either formed parts of other units or were created for the new divisions. It is not my fault what you see as "blather" or irrelevant.

Dismounted Cavalry is still Cavalry. It is not Infantry. The "dismounted" Cavalry was given special TOE's but still had fewer Riflemen and Heavy Weapons compared to Infantry. Horse Cavalry continued to the end of the war even if they only did parades or participate at Fort Benning at the Infantry School. The Cavalry School was at Fort Riley.

The supply of Horses and Mules in 1940 was a concern for the Army. Several of the personal histories I have read on Cavalry Officers in WWII mention the lack of qualified mounts in the National Guards. It seems the Guard allowed inferior mounts before the war and the War Department did not agree. You might benefit from reading the histories of the Texas National Guard, the South Dakota National Guard and the 112th and 124th Cavalry Regiments. Armor Magazine also has occasional articles on the interwar Army of the 30's.

Did you read this reply more easily? You may have to go up and down to your quoted reply to keep track of my answers. You see I do read your posts..

Pruitt
__________________
Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06 Aug 17, 02:18
shrike6's Avatar
shrike6 shrike6 is offline
Corporal
United_States
ACG Ten Year Service Award ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NE
Posts: 54
shrike6 is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
Field Artillery is a combat arms branch.

2nd Battalion, 138th Field Artillery, KYARNG, served in Vietnam
https://kynghistory.ky.gov/Our-Histo...etnam-War.aspx

3rd Battalion, 197th Field Artillery, NHARNG, served in Vietnam
http://digitaledition.qwinc.com/arti...0/article.html

There may have been others, but I know of these two.
Interesting to know, if it comes again somewhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06 Aug 17, 08:46
82redleg's Avatar
82redleg 82redleg is offline
Sergeant Major
United_States
ACG 5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Fort Living Room
Posts: 309
82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99] 82redleg is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
I am reading your posts and they say one thing. You read mine and make assumptions. The post I made about support units was supposed to be read as before WWI. You read it to include the interwar years. The three new divisions were largely taken out of the divisions that were formed for WWI. To get the new divisions the Army had to create some Guard units that either formed parts of other units or were created for the new divisions. It is not my fault what you see as "blather" or irrelevant.
I'm not sure how you can assert that you were talking about before WWI, when the post clearly states "Before WWII..." I'm not reading it to include the interwar, you just wrote false information, and now you're throwing irrelevant information out there to obfuscate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
Dismounted Cavalry is still Cavalry. It is not Infantry. The "dismounted" Cavalry was given special TOE's but still had fewer Riflemen and Heavy Weapons compared to Infantry. Horse Cavalry continued to the end of the war even if they only did parades or participate at Fort Benning at the Infantry School. The Cavalry School was at Fort Riley.
I never said that it wasn't. You said wondered if the poor quality of ARNG mounts was a secondary reason that ARNG cavalry was converted. I said that it wasn't, that the US (and everyone else that could afford it, which in practice meant some US allies) was mechanizing everything. The cavalry wasn't converted because of poor quality horses, the horses were poor quality because mechanization was taking over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
The supply of Horses and Mules in 1940 was a concern for the Army. Several of the personal histories I have read on Cavalry Officers in WWII mention the lack of qualified mounts in the National Guards. It seems the Guard allowed inferior mounts before the war and the War Department did not agree. You might benefit from reading the histories of the Texas National Guard, the South Dakota National Guard and the 112th and 124th Cavalry Regiments. Armor Magazine also has occasional articles on the interwar Army of the 30's.
Only in the old guard that was hanging on to horse-mobile formations. The sane leaders were pushing mechanization as fast as they could afford to develop the material. There's a reason that the US Army was still using horses in 1940, and effectively wasn't (outside of some ceremonial units, etc) in 1944. And it wasn't because of poor quality horses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
Did you read this reply more easily? You may have to go up and down to your quoted reply to keep track of my answers. You see I do read your posts..
I read your posts, too, even though they often contain more noise than content.

If you copy the brackets [] with QUOTE=... (where ... is a username and then some numbers), and then put brackets with /quote inside after the paragraph or idea you are responding to, it makes it very clear in the post what you are quoting, and what you are adding. I thought you've done that before, but I don't seen it immediately in this thread, so I'll assume that you really don't know how, and aren't just being obnoxiously passive aggressive.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:58.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.