|
Post by quincannon on Dec 18, 2015 23:32:41 GMT
You will never understand it. I don't understand it. The Army does not understand it. I will try.
DIVISIONS: The mobilization plan of 1917 stated that
The numbers 1-25 were reserved for the Regular Army.
The number 26 and above were reserved for the National Guard.
The numbers 76 and above were reserved for the National Army. These were divisions made up of draftees called into service for the war. After the war those divisions 76 and above were allocated to the Organized Reserve which over time became the Army Reserve
They were not branch specific divisions. There was no 1st Infantry Division for instance, just the 1st Division.
Branch specific division started in 1921 with the constitution (adding the designation to the rolls of the Army)of the 1-3 Cavalry Divisions in the RA, the 21-24 Cavalry Divisions in the NG, and the 61-66 Cavalry Division in the OR.
In 1941 the armored division were established in a separate numbering system.
The 82nd and 101st Airborne Division were converted from existing OR divisions. The 11th, 13th and 17th Airborne Divisions were created new.
During WWII they ran out of division numbers so a new category was created called the Army of The United States. Many of the armored divisions were AUS, and in the Infantry series the 63rd,65th,66th,69th,70th,71st, and 75th Infantry Division were created new, along with the 10th Mountain.
REGIMENTS
They followed the same basic system as divisions, although over time there have been many, MANY variances from the norm.
1-100 were allocated to the Regular Army
101 to 300 were allocated to the National Guard
301 and above to the National Army.
None of these allocations was completely filled. The RA in WWI got to about 80 or so. The NG to about 170 or there about, and the National Army to somewhere around 375.
There was no 100th Infantry Regiment but there was a 100th Infantry Battalion composed of Japanese-Americans from Hawaii. They had a separate existence for a while including combat in Italy. Later they became the 100th Battalion, 442nd Infantry (Go For Broke) Regiment, and they still exist as such.
In Mississippi, the 155th Infantry is your largest NG outfit and it traces back to the Mississippi Rifles of the Mexican War. I forget the state designation they carried during the ACW. In WWI they came on active duty with their state name, and was soon changed to the 155th Infantry AEF. After WWI they carried their AEF designation and do to this day.
We do not have real regiments today, and that is a long story, and the last time I told it I got in all kinds of trouble on the black board. Essentially it works this way, The regiment exists on paper, say the 7th Cavalry. What you see as the 1st Battalion of the 7th Cavalry today actually draws their history and honors from Company A of the old regiment, 2nd Battalion from Company B, 3rd Battalion from Company C and so on. It is all historical fiction created when regiments were about to go out of business as tactical headquarters back in 1957.
There is a chart in Of Garry Owen In Glory as an appendix that attempts to explain the system. I think Ian has posted a similar chart on these boards before. We tried to duplicate the British Regimental System artificially, and we have had it since 1957 and it has never really worked the proof of which is your original question. No one really understands it .
When Ian gets his web site up and running you will have most of your questions answered. Maybe he will be so good as to post one or two of the lineages and orders of battle here. They are very good and quite accurate. I know the guy who wrote them very well.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 31, 2015 20:12:54 GMT
Well I have spent every day since the day after Christmas in bed, with some sort of intestinal virus that has been going around town.
The good news in all that is that my copy of "High Tide of The Korean War" by Leo Barron arrived this past Monday and I had a chance to read it as I could do, or felt like doing little else.
Barron follows his usual format, including battle perspectives at all levels from foxhole to command post. He sends a great deal of time on the Mitchell patrol, and the Twin Tunnels, the overture and first act of Chipyong Ni. He pays due homage to the Battalion Koree. You also get an in depth picture of Freeman as a commander. The battle narrative is superb and easy to follow. That maps, while not plentiful, are clear and well done.
I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the Korean War. If your knowledge of that conflict is limited I would suggest you read Clay Blair's "Forgotten War" to put you into the complete picture, before picking up Barron. I think you will enjoy Barron more that way.
Ian will find how the U S Army organizes itself for combat quite interesting. The Mitchell patrol for instance was made up of elements of Companies C and D of the 23rd Infantry, and a platoon of the 21st Infantry from another division (the 24th ID), which had a mutual interest in the information the patrol was formed to acquire.
All in all a good and informative read.
I seem to be getting over this whatever it was, but safe to say I won't be doing any high stepping this evening. Happy New Year to all.
PS: I have never mentioned this before, and that itself is unusual. The reason I find the Korean War so important in U S Army history is that it was our first exposure to, and the genesis of the last half of the 20th Century and into the present day, for the doctrine of how to fight outnumbered AND WIN. Chipyong-Ni is a prime example of how it is done.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 1, 2016 17:50:48 GMT
Fluids Chuck fluids, get as much water inside you as possible, my mum used to boil a kettle of water then let it cool and then make me drink a glass full, I don’t know the logic behind it but I guess it flushes you out. What parts of the lineages do you require? Give me a clue as I am open to requests.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 1, 2016 19:08:21 GMT
I hope that you are feeling better QC.
Would it be opening a can of worms to ask about your opinion of McArthur?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2016 19:16:12 GMT
My personal health crisis has past and I just discussed the evening menu with the Madam - steak-lobster-baked potato - a fitting New Years menu for the offspring of the Gods.
Lineages: Just an example of a division lineage from each of the three components. Let's say the 4th for the Regular Army, the 28th for the NG, and the 80th for the USAR. That should give everyone he flavor of the thing. Post them on the lineage thread, or I will get in trouble with the moderator. Oh wait - that's you. Never mind.
Are you back from Wales? Did you say hi to the Prince? Did Mac and Conrad waltz with Matilda?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2016 19:35:56 GMT
It would Beth, more like a case of cans of worms.
I assume you are talking about the MacArthur of Korea, and not before?
1) MacArthur had all the intelligence necessary to foresee, and make preparations for an NKPA incursion across the inner Korean border, as early as the spring of 1950. That was his theater, and he did nothing.
2) MacArthur deployed his troops in penny packets forward from Pusan to Osan which led to defeat in detail of units like Task Force Smith, when he should have known all that area north of the Naktong was indefensible. The Naktong River Line was the place to assemble and defend. That was what was eventually done but at the cost of a divisions worth of small units destroyed or rendered combat ineffective. There are only two places South Korea can be defended against an invasion from the North, the Han River line or the Naktong River line. By the time TF Smith arrived the Han had been breeched in several places. Losing face meant more to Mac than losing troops.
3) He took an off the shelf plan - Blue Hearts - ginned up by FECOM staff years before, and made an end run. Conventional thinking for most students of warfare, but once Mac's press agents got hold of it they turned convention into Mac's brilliance.
4)He got in bed with Rhee, the China Lobby, and very deep under the covers in ultra conservative Republican politics. and that effected everything he did after Inchon, and ultimately led to his downfall.
5)Mac passed his "sell date" about 10 December 1941. He should have been relieved.
6)He did an absolutely splendid job as the overseer of Japanese reconstruction, and that is what he will be remembered for 300 years from now, not his military brilliance or lack thereof.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 1, 2016 20:19:30 GMT
QC What is your opinion regarding MacArthur's delayed discovery of the Chinese army in North Korea. On November 6, 1950 the Far Eastern Command, FEC, allowed there were only 34, 500 ChiComs yet next day they listed over 300,000 enemy troops. Quite a military move with over 270,000 troops moving in a 24 hour period. I know the Marines and 1st Cavalry Division did there best to inform MacArthur's staff of the troop movement but to no avail. MacArhtur seemed to have the ability to ignore inconvenient facts and circumstances till he could no longer do so and then adopt them as his own ideas or actions. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2016 20:31:37 GMT
Dave if I was an evil, spiteful person prone to finding a conspiracy hiding under every garbage can, I would say that MacArthur wanted the CCF to enter Korea in force, in order to bring the Chinese Nationalists into the Korea fight. Thus my constant finger pointing toward MacArthur and the China Lobby, with both of them sucking up to the Republican leadership in the House.
The story of Korea goes far beyond Korea itself. The three parties mentioned were an unholy trio, and when you bring in Rhee, there has not been such a witches brew since those old hags sat around the camp fire in Birnam Wood.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 1, 2016 21:03:48 GMT
QC It seems MacArthur had been surrounded by sycophants (Bataan Gang/Palace Guard) for so long he had no concept of being in the real world. President Roosevelt had been indulgent with Doug so he expected the same from Truman. Harry was not intimidated by Doug and expected all to honor the office of the Prersident if not the man.
MacArthur was incapable to admit mistakes and he refused to acknowledge being surprised by the Chinese attack in November 1950. His egomania was the price the US paid for having MacArthur and for along time the price was worth the ride. The inability to respect and acquiesce to the power of the president and the office lead to his dismissal in April of 1951.
Would the outcome have been any different if MacArthur had cooperated with Harry S and continued as commander of US forces in Korea? Without attacking China and using Nationalist Chinese forces, could he had been able to bring to an end the Police Action with the US and South Korea with greater success? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2016 22:54:13 GMT
It would have been over in October-November 1950. He was warned by the Chinese, through Indian channels, that any crossing of the 38th would not be tolerated by China. The Immun Gun was shot. Had he been content with the restoration of the inter-Korean border, and not gone north, basically status quo anti bellum, the whole thing would have been over and done with. We would still have troops there mind you, but thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides would have been saved, no one would have any face problems, and we would not even be discussing a threat from that quarter today, in my opinion. China propped up that family of moronic nit wits for fifty years to prevent another trip northward, until they themselves could not stomach the pin headed dweebs.
It stopped being a police action when MacArthur went north and became war. Policing is about restoration of status quo. War is defined as warfare for material gain. The only one to see any gain in going north was Rhee and his gang of democratic thugs.
At any given time in history there will be at least 49 percent of the people in this country that do not like the incumbent president. That is to be expected, the nature of human affairs. What is also to be expected is that 100 percent of all the people respect the office of the presidency, regardless of who is sitting in the chair. I once sat directly in front of President and Mrs. Carter at the Post Pavillion in Maryland, watching Emmy Lou Harris and Willie Nelson in concert. He came in quietly and was introduced to the audience just before intermission. I who had not voted for him, and had impure thoughts on his performance so far, was standing there clapping and cheering just as loud, perhaps louder, than anyone in the joint. He was MY President, and I as both soldier and citizen was proud to be in his company. When we lose sight of that, we stop being Americans to some degree. MacArthur lost sight of that, and got exactly what he deserved.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 1, 2016 22:57:45 GMT
QC I find your assessment enlightening because they come from a professional perspective not tinted by historical hoopla (if that makes sense.) It's like getting an opinion of a car from perspective of a professional driver vrs a Sunday driver.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2016 23:17:45 GMT
When a serving officer Beth starts believing he is and acting like a policy maker, he places himself well above his station. The military MUST always be the people who implement policy, not make it, at least that is how it is enshrined in our Constitution, and defined by the oath we all take.
I and others like me are answerable only to our political masters. We have an out that relieves us from adherence to policy we cannot in good conscience undertake. It's called resignation. Our masters though are answerable to you.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 1, 2016 23:19:43 GMT
QC While I worked at Ole Miss I was fortunate to meet President Ford, Ms Rosalynn and attended the 2008 debate here between Obama and McCain. I agree it is the office we respect and honor not the man. As like anyone else I have political views that are not always in accord with the President but I critique the policies not the man. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 1, 2016 23:29:09 GMT
Dave: The last resident I can totally relate to was TR. Those since have fallen short in some respect then if TR is the standard. I am going to sign off now, hug my Teddy Bear, and work on making Indianapolis into Portland.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 1, 2016 23:41:32 GMT
Be sure to watch the Sugar Bowl and holler Goooooooooooooo Rebelsssssssssss Regards Dave
|
|