colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 8, 2017 20:24:44 GMT
Yan, That leads to my last question to Chuck. What would we do with full colonels if a BG commands the brigade. Currently, a full colonel commands a brigade, or at least did when I was involved.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 8, 2017 20:41:11 GMT
Well that would leave a void between brigade and division, but don't you have regiments in these brigades, so if a major commands a company and a colonel a battalion, then who commands a regiment?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2017 22:13:23 GMT
You've got to be kidding Colt. Suggesting that you eliminate the rank of Colonel in the U S Army is like suggesting that celibacy be practiced in a bordello.
Brigade Combat Teams are commanded by Colonels Ian. They are considered the same echelon of command as the old regimental combat team.
At one time from about 1958 until about ten years ago we had Separate Brigades, as many as 18 or so at one time. They fell into two categories, theater defense brigades, and separate maneuver brigades. The theater defense brigades were generally smaller, usually with only two maneuver battalions, and some other combat and combat service support assets. Examples of these were the 171st (Alaska), 172 (Alaska), and 193rd (Panama). Most of the brigades though followed the following model and the majority of them were in the National Guard.
HHC Cavalry Troop Engineer Company Signal Detachment 3 maneuver battalions Field Artillery Battalion Support Battalion
The theater defense brigades were commanded by colonels, while the separate maneuver brigades were commanded by Brigadier Generals.
THE SMB's were very good, and quite capable organizations. Wish we still had them. I like them better than the current BCT's in that they were of a much more simplified design. If you needed to give a division another brigade for a given mission, the SMB could just plug right into the existing division structure.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2017 22:18:38 GMT
Ian we don't have regiments. The three we still call regiments are brigades. They retain the name regiment strictly for historical purposes. Two are Stryker Brigades (2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments) and the third is a armored training brigade at our National Training Center (11th Armored Cavalry Regiment)
Let me try to put it to you this way
Lord Strathcona died a hundred fifty years ago, but there is still Lord Strathcona's Horse.
Princess Patricia never served in the light Infantry, but there is still Princess Patricia's Light Infantry
The Royal Horse Artillery has not used horses in 70 or more years but there is still a Royal Horse Artillery.
There is nary a gray reconnaissance vehicle in the Royal Scots Grays
Lances have been obsolete for a hundred years but there are still Lancers
Every army tries to maintain a connection to the past. Ours is no different. No we do not have three battalion tactical regiments anymore. They have been replaced by brigades. The regiment though was the foundation stone of our army. We wished to maintain that connection, although they were obsolete as tactical units. SO what we did is tie all of our present combat units to a regiment from the past. The 1st Battalion, 66th Armored Regiment, is just a battalion, that carries on the history and traditions of the 66th Armored Regiment of the past. It is not connected in any way with any other battalion, It stands alone. It is assigned to a brigade, the other battalions of which will most likely have historical connectivity with other regiments of the past.
In short our army like your army, and most of the armies in the world are practioners of historical fiction.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 8, 2017 23:14:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2017 13:29:52 GMT
I know that most of you will know this, but what the hell, I enjoyed finding it, it is a breakdown of who commanded what in a US Infantry Battalion headquarters unit circa 1944;
BATTALION HEADQUARTERS Lieutenant Colonel [battalion commander] Major [executive officer] Captain [operation and training officer] 1st Lieutenant [intelligence officer]
HEADQUARTERS COMPANY Captain [adjutant and company commander] 1st Lieutenant [motor transport officer] 1st Sergeant [senior NCO]
ARTILLERY LIAISON SECTION [attached unit during combat operations] Captain [liaison officer] Sergeant [Assistant]
BATTALION HEADQUARTERS SECTION Technical Sergeant [section leader]
COMMUNICATION PLATOON 1st Lieutenant [platoon commander] Staff Sergeant [communications chief]
AMMUNITION AND PIONEER PLATOON 2nd Lieutenant [platoon leader] Technical Sergeant [assistant leader]
ANTI-TANK PLATOON 2nd Lieutenant [platoon leader] Technical Sergeant [assistant leader]
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2017 13:57:38 GMT
We don't have platoon commanders in the U S Army. We have Platoon Leaders
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2017 14:01:42 GMT
Well if you want to split hairs, fair enough, but I posted that to show who led what, the words in brackets were just for show. I thought that the officers in sequence would be in helpful with what we were talking about yesterday, that's why I spent the time finding it, typing it out (no cut and paste done here) and putting it up.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2017 14:20:30 GMT
I am not splitting hairs at all. They are what they are,
If you want to do it right, there is only one right,
The title commander in the United States Army is reserved for the very few.
You command at Corps, Division, Brigade, Battalion, Company, and Detachment levels ,
If you wish to learn about the U S Army, then it would be a disservice to you if I did not insist that the right terms be used.
Words have meaning, and in 90 percent of the cases you cannot apply terms used in the British and Commonwealth Armies to the American Army. For instance:
In the British Army you have rifle sections. In the American Army we have rifle squads. These two terms both denote a number of riflemen grouped under the leadership of one person. To us the word section has two meanings depending upon how it is used. A section may mean two or three squads grouped together, but less than a platoon. An example the old weapons platoons had a mortar section of three squads, and an anti-armor section of two squads. The word section may also mean a group of people performing the same function, as in Operations Section or Intelligence Section.
If you used the word squadron when talking about a British Armored Unit to an American, he would think you are talking about an organization at battalion level, when the reality is you are speaking about something we would call a tank company or reconnaissance troop.
Another example would be the words battle group as used by the British and Commonwealth Armies. To you it would mean a grouping of companies and squadrons of mechanized Infantry and Armor, joined together for a specific tactical mission. In the American Army the term we would use is battalion task force. The words battle group to us refers to a long forgotten, and totally unlamented organizational construct of only one arm that existed between 1957 and 1964, as in 1st Airborne Battle Group, 504th Infantry. or 1st Battle Group, 7th Cavalry.
To you the word regiment has a couple of meanings. It may mean a battalion sized unit of Armor or Artillery. It may mean a grouping of Infantry battalions under one overarching title, like The Royal Regiment of Scotland, The Royal Welsh Regiment, or The Royal Australian Regiment. Then again it may mean that it is a corps like the Royal Signals Corps. To us, up until 1957 the regiment consisted of a unit containing two or three battalions of a single arm of the service, such as the 7th Infantry Regiment. Post 1957 the term became one of historical fiction, where we tied separate battalions and squadrons to a historical title, as in 1st Battalion, 3rd Infantry, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 2nd Battalion, 5th Field Artillery. It was a means of carrying forward the traditions and honors of the past.
Regiments as tactical and administrative units had practically ceased to exist early in WWII for us, The exception was the Infantry Regiment. The Infantry Regiment lasted until 1957 when the Army reorganized under ROCID and ROCAD. We traded three Infantry Regiments in a division for five battle groups. That lasted until 1962-64 when the five battle groups were replaced by eah division having three brigades. The brigade was only a brigade headquarters and headquarters company to which could be attached any number of battalions ranging from two to five, for a specific mission. In construct it was very much like the combat commands of the 1944 to 1962 armored divisions.
To understand the U S Army you must first understand how the U S Army thinks, and organizes. You must be fully conversant with its history, and the terminology it uses which in most cases is completely different from that used in the majority of the rest of the world. We are the same as all of them, but different. That is why when I am speaking to you about the British Army I use British Army terms so I may be fully understood, and it took me nearly a lifetime to learn them and I still have questions on a few.
We, in the U S Army study the structure of all nations. We fully understand that we do not have all the answers and try to adapt the ideas of others that would or could work for us. Sometimes we are not too bright. For instance most of our commanders in WWII were completely confused by such titles as 17th/21st Lancers or 16th/5th Lancers. To us, using those designations as written they would mean 17th Battalion, 21st Lancers or 16th Battalion, 5th Lancers. In reality they meant in your usage the amalgamation of two former regiments the 17th Lancers with the 21st, and the 16th Lancers with the 5th during the organizational retrenchments of the early 1920's. To further confuse things for us, you put 16th ahead of 5th. The answer is of course that the 5th was disbanded, then re-raised later, placing it then lower in order of precedence than the 16th. Try telling that to the average American soldier and they would think you have gone to a planet far away. It is your way of doing things though, and it should be honored. In fact your Army insists that it be honored. We are much the same in that regard
If you wish to get across the message you intend to your audience, the proper term used in the proper context is essential. To do otherwise only confuses those you are trying to inform.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2017 17:11:01 GMT
Yes there is a world of difference in terminology between the two armies. You do get some odd numbers in many regiments, the 14th Punjab regiment was an Indian regiment which fought with the British army from 1922 to 1947 and during the Second World War it had a total of 18 battalions;
1st Battalion - Malaya. Captured at Singapore in February 1942. Re-raised 1946. 2nd Battalion - Hong Kong. Captured in December 1941. Re-raised 1946. 3rd Battalion - North Africa, Aden, Italian East Africa, Burma. 4th Battalion - Burma, Siam. 5th Battalion - Malaya. Captured at Singapore in February 1942. Re-raised 1952. 6th Battalion - Raised in 1940. Singapore. Captured in February 1942. 7th Battalion - Raised in 1941. Burma. Disbanded 1946. 8th Battalion - Raised in 1941. India. Re-designated as 2/14th Punjab in 1946. 9th Battalion - Raised in 1941. Ceylon, Burma, French Indochina, Sarawak. Disbanded 1947. 10th (Training) Battalion - Converted into the 14th Punjab Regimental Training Centre in 1943. 11th (Territorial) Battalion - Mobilized in 1939. Transferred to the 9th Jat Regiment, becoming the 9/9th Jat in 1941. 12th (Territorial) Battalion - Raised in 1939. Transferred to the 9th Jat Regiment, becoming the 14/9th Jat in 1941. 14th Battalion - Raised in 1942. India. Disbanded 1945. 15th Battalion - Re-designation of the Machine Gun Battalion. Converted into a training unit in 1942. India. Disbanded 1946. 16th Battalion - Raised as the 25th Garrison Battalion in 1942. On conversion to active status, served in India. Disbanded 1944. 25th Garrison Battalion - Raised in 1942. On conversion to active status, became the 16th Battalion. India. 26th Garrison Battalion - Raised in 1942. Converted to active status in January 1945 but not renumbered. India, Cocos Islands. Disbanded 1945. Machine-Gun Battalion - Raised in January 1942. Redesignated as 15/14th Punjab in July 1942.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2017 17:29:42 GMT
And the meaning of that is that all of those battalions were raised at a single regimental depot, all wore the same regimental insignia, and from there deployed world wide as the dictates of the conflict determined. They came from the same area, the Punjab, and the only thing that really connected them was the regimental title and insignia, and the local affiliation.
We have activated five battalions/squadrons (designation depending upon the intended role) since 1957 of the 7th Cavalry. There have never during that time been more than three assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division. Most of that time only two, and again most of that time they served in different brigades of that division, the exception being from 1966 to 1972 when the 1st, 2nd, and 5th battalions served together in the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, which was known locally as the Garryowen Brigade.
We do not have regimental depots. We give a newly activated battalion a flag, and say you are this, then fill those units with soldiers from anywhere we can get our hands on them.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2017 17:34:05 GMT
I always wondered why the cavalry companies we see in 1876, had three officers plus a first sergeant, we have spoken in the past about the company being the lowest formation in those days and no platoon level unit had yet existed, so why have two lieutenants, surly a captain, lieutenant and a first sergeant would be enough as I would think that the four line sergeants and three corporals would be enough to keep order.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2017 18:11:30 GMT
How are you going to train officers to be captains, if they were first not Lieutenants?
How are you going to operate in combat without the ability for someone to sleep while someone else is awake.
How are you going to control 100 personnel (a full strength company) without some assistance?
How are you going to split that company up for different taskings if you don't have the ability to supervise those taskings?
Just because the platoon level did not exist at that time does not mean that the company always operated together.
Those two officers were there to do what the company commander told them to do. They in my opinion actually required three lieutenants to do the job adequately and efficiently, but Congress has been full of cheap shits since 1775.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 9, 2017 19:46:17 GMT
Regarding Auchinleck, I recall a bloke on another web site, saying the he was a good battlefield commander but his decision to promote Ritchie, Messervy and Gott as field commanders was a bad mistake.
I remember the same fellow saying that Auchinleck was a tactical innovator who championed the need for combined arms and the battle group concept.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 9, 2017 20:20:15 GMT
Both of those things I would completely agree with, especially Ritchie.
Auchinleck, as far as I am concerned was one of your best, and far superior to Montgomery. I believe he got a raw deal when he was relieved. Somebody had to kick Churchill's can for the loss of Tobruk. Auchinleck relieved Ritchie, stopped Rommel short of Alexandria, and won First Alamein, but evidently that was not enough to please Winston. Churchill could be a bone head at times, and this in my estimation was one of those times.
By the way I believe your very best, bar none, was Slim, and your most original thinker, in spite of the fact that he was a freak of nature, was Wingate.
For those not understanding the freak of nature comment ---- Orde Wingate was known to frequently be found in his command post, in combat stark naked with an alarm clock tied to his wrist. That was one of his more conventional attributes. Notwithstanding that though the man was absolutely brilliant.
|
|