The first shoulder patches or flashes date back to the Civil War, when they were used to identify troops of various corps, IIRC.  Starting in WW1, the 81st Division (Wildcats) were the first unit to identify themselves with a distinctive shoulder patch (that still exists today as the patch of the 81st Reserve Command.)  By the end of WW1 all Army units of Division-level and higher had SSIs.  By WWII the number of SSIs exploded as the Army grew to its biggest size ever.  After WWII not only did all Divisions, Corps and Armies have SSIs, but many separate brigades, regiments, regimental combat teams, schools and other specialized commands all had their own unique, identifying patches.   

I'm not sure when the practice of wearing the "combat patch" came about - I assume it was in WW2.  By the time I came into the Army in 1980, of course, the patches were well established parts of a soldier's uniform. 

Division patches, of course, originated at a time when the division was the smallest combined-arms unit of the Army that could fight independently.  After the ROAD reorganization of the 1950's, the Division became the primary tactical unit and regiments became symbolic and primarily used for unit lineage. 

But a number of factors recently have made me wonder if we'll see the end of patches within a few years.  Some of those changes are:

1.  The change to the BCT structure which has made the Brigade Combat Team the primary independent combined-arms command in the Army, with Divisions merely coordinating interchangeable BCTs in much the same way the Corps used to command interchangeable Divisions during WW2. 

2.  The new ACU uniform that no longer required patches to be sewn on to uniforms, instead they are stuck on with velcro. 

3.  The move to a new class-a uniform, the blues, that does not use shoulder patches. 

The move to BCTs is key, I think.  Right now all BCTs are considered to be brigades of combat divisions, but I could foresee a time when BCTs start to assume an individual identity separate from the division they were originally part of.  Perhaps they'll revert to the old Regimental lineage system, with each BCT assuming the lineage of an historic regiment. 

My impression is that as time goes by, fewer soldiers will wear their combat patches (because it's a PITA and not required) and that after a while even wearing the current unit patch will become more trouble than it's worth and units will start leaving their patches off unless they are in a CONUS garrison.  As more units rotate into and out of "the box", this overseas practice will start to migrate back to the states.  Combined with the lack of full-color SSIs on class-A uniforms, I could see patches being gradually phased out. 

I think patches may live on for quite a while "unofficially", and may be painted on water tanks, printed on T-shirts and coffee mugs, included in unit certificates and worn on civilian jackets and hats, but as military decorations I think they'll fade away. 

It's too bad, I think.  I always liked the colorful and descriptive patches used by the Army, and I often got the impression that some members of the other services wished they could identify themselves in such a distinctive manner. 

My all-time favorite patch was never actually used, it was part of the massive deception plan before Operation Overlord.  Of course, I'm talking about the 135th Airborne Division "Black Widows".    Check it out: 

Now that's a wicked patch! 

Anyway, in the great scheme of things it doesn't really matter, I suppose.  The Army changes over time.  The army of my day wouldn't have been recognizable to my dad or my granddad, and no doubt the army of 2020 is going to look as weird to me as the army of my day looked to the WWII veteran retirees walking around Ft. Bragg. 

Of course to do this the Army would need to align battalions of the same regiment in the same brigades(at that point they could just be called regimental combat teams).  This would not be a problem in the 82nd and 101st, but would require realigning almost every other brigade in the Army(the 10th Mountain has at least two battalions of the 87th Infantry Regiment in the Division, but they are in different brigades).  They could also realign the brigades of the 1st Cav Division fairly easily(the last I saw they have four cavalry regiments in the division, but not one brigade has the battalions of the same regiment in the same brigade).

The problem would be in the heavy divisions, 1st Armored, 1st ID, etc.  They could easily use the term combat command, which is how armored divisions were organized in WWII.  And there are some brigades, the 173rd for example, that I don't think they will change to a regimental designation because of their own unique history.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS

MIKE LANSAW        

It is great to have competition between divisions and brigades.  Who's the best?  Who talks the best smack and who can back it up.  I remember the fights between the Rangers and the 82d at JRTC during the 1st rotation at Polk.  All about who had it where it counts.  Guess who?

And there is no better feeling than knowing where you and your unit come from.  The lineage and honors of a unit are essential to building that same esprit-de-corps.  Why do you think COSCOM sucks?