|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 17:59:56 GMT
You pointed out Ian that if a division has only two regiments it is not a square division. That is correct.
I will point out that we did not have divisions with only two regiments.
It is also correct that when U S Army divisions had four regiments, they were called were square divisions.
I do not think you really understand that our use of the word regiment and your use of the word brigade in the World War Two timeframe, indicated two units that were identical in size, function, and employment.
Let me illustrate:
The 29th Infantry Division when it was mobilized contained two brigades as follows:
HHC, 58th Infantry Brigade 115th Infantry Regiment (Hqs. and 3 battalions) 175th Infantry Regiment (Hqs. and 3 battalions)
and
HHC,88th Infantry Brigade 116th Infantry Regiment (Hqs. and 3 battalions) 176th Infantry Regiment (Hqs. and 3 battalions)
That was the "square division"
When the 29th Infantry Division reorganized to become triangular it consisted of
115th Infantry Regiment (Hqs, and 3 battalions) 116th Infantry Regiment (Hqs. and 3 battalions) 175th Infantry Regiment (Hqs. and 3 battalions)
##################################################
Typical British Infantry Brigade 1939-1945 (Hqs. and 3 battalions)
The key to your misunderstanding I think is that you use the word regiment far differently than we do. There are a number of other words as well but that will suffice here.
##################################################
Therefore the US regiment of that period mirrors the typical organization of one of your Infantry brigades.
Now I have gone to great pains to understand how your army is organized. I had to for my previous job. In fact your army is not the only one that I had to understand the organizational and terminology constructs of and for the same reason. If you wish to understand the US Army you must do the same. I keep telling you that you CANNOT DEPEND UPON UK source material in that effort. You must look only at US source material, just as I had to read and absorb material from the UK to understand what you folks did and were doing. Good Christ if the guy sitting next to me did not speak both French and German fluently I would still be working on those two.
As a side note, the two brigade headquarters that were made excess to requirements were combined and converted in most cases to the divisional cavalry reconnaissance troop. The Headquarters and Headquarters Company 173rd Airborne Brigade that is in Italy today was during WWII the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Troop, organic to the 87th Infantry Division.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 4, 2017 18:20:43 GMT
I really do understand the American concept Chuck, its just that when I point things out it seems to get lost in the grand scheme of things, and this is a perfect example. All I was eluding to was that one division and how its units were formed into twos, which I found different, But adding all the regiments together would give you four to the division.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 4, 2017 18:29:15 GMT
Did the 1st Cavalry division have only three regiments in WW2? [The 5th, 7th & 8th], did the 9th Cavalry regiment ever join this formation to make it four. Here is a diagram which show this division in November 1940 [apparently it still relied on horses to tow its fields guns];
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 18:40:13 GMT
Ian in World War I when we used brigades as a command headquarters, out divisions were the size of a European corps, about 27-28 thousand. We needed those brigade headquarters to help the division commander control those four really big regiments. Normally when in the trenches a division was arrayed like this
First Line ----- XXX REGIMENT XXX XXX REGIMENT XXX (one divisional brigade)
Second Line ---- XXX REGIMENT XXX XXX REGIMENT XXX (one divisional brigade)
The division of WWI was found to be un-maneuverable for the doctrine that was being developed in the 20's and 30's. We therefore slimmed down to about 15,000 and eliminated everything we did not need. In doing so we made the chain of command shorter going from the divisional commander direct to the regimental commander, rather than what it had been before division to brigade to regiment.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 4, 2017 18:59:03 GMT
Not to change the subject but I am really surprised as to the size of the Royal Navy. Britain has 77 ships commissioned with 33,000 plus personnel which makes it the 5th largest naval force in the world right behind the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force with 154 commissioned ships and 60,000 plus personnel. I had no idea of how far the draw down has been of the RN since WW II.
I have no doubts as to the quality and abilities of the RN's ships and crews! Rule Britannia! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 19:00:49 GMT
You have the answer to that one on your own web site Ian. I know because I put it there.
The 12th Cavalry was the fourth regiment.
That diagram is nowhere near how the 1st Cavalry Division entered combat in WWII in the Admiralties. The recon squadron was gone before they left the States. The whole division was completely dismounted before they left as well and all the horses and horse equipment turned in. The DIVARTY went to Australia pretty much as shown minus the horse of course, and the four regiments left the States as they are shown. In Australia at Camp Strathpine (maybe Mac knows where that it) the division was reorganized completely as Infantry, the artillery added a battalion. cavalry squadrons added a fourth (weapons) troop, a weapons (cannon) troop was added to each regiment, and the division support troops were also reorganized along strictly Infantry division lines. Units like the engineers, medical, signal retained the old squadron and troop designations but they were in fact identical to the engineers, medical and signal units you would find in a typical Infantry division. They also had a recon troop and a tank company added to the structure as divisional units. It was decided that a tank company would be sufficient because of where and how they would be employed.
The only real difference in the 1st CD was that it was an eight battalion sized Infantry division as opposed to a nine battalion convention ID. Actually the brigade construct worked out fairly well in the Pacific. As you saw in the Admiralties the brigade was used as a sort of task force headquarters, for the relatively small jobs like Los Negros. Using the brigade headquarters like that though made the regimental headquarters for the most part unnecessary.
The 9th Cavalry was disbanded in 1944 when the 2nd Cavalry Division was broken up in North Africa. First time you see the 9th associated with the 1st Cavalry Division is 1957, when 1st Squadron 9th Cavalry became the recon squadron of the division when the division itself was reorganized under the PENTOMIC concept.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 4, 2017 19:10:56 GMT
Yes I do recall the 5th, 7th & 8th , this is the problem with doing multiply units from many different countries at the same time, apart from grappling with you today over the 1st cavalry, I have been chasing up units for the British 42 armoured and the German 352 Infantry division. Things like this also get in the way; link
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 4, 2017 19:15:00 GMT
Dave our navy has shrunk dramatically, it will probably grow even smaller if the politicians have their way. They do stupid things like building a huge aircraft carrier costing millions and run out of cash to supply it with aircraft. They are also thinking of developing new nuclear subs, which again is probably been suggested to keep the Scottish happy, as these will be built up there.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 19:19:22 GMT
Keep in mind Dave that the six Daring Class destroyers have more combat power than the entire British Home Fleet had in 1941.
Amateurs and stupid politicians look at numbers, for that is what they are used to. Amateurs can be forgiven for the only yardstick they can use is history. Politicians should be better informed but are not, therefore stupid applies. Professionals look first at capabilities then decide on numbers required based upon those capabilities.
I don't think those two aircraft carriers of yours are stupid at all Ian. If you want the Royal Navy to operate in the North and Irish Sea, and the Channel you don't need them. Scrap them. If on the other hand you wish the Royal Navy to operate outside those confines you had better damned well have them. I don't know why your government has not tried to lease the F35 from us rather than buy them. It's like Avis for airplanes, and it would work to everyone's advantage.
Would you say in 1939 that battleships built in Scotland would be a bad idea designed only to keep the Scots quiet. Don't think so. Well the submarine of today is the battleship of yesteryear. Get used to that fact. A battleship standing off the coast of North Korea in the old days may impress the NK's. One of your Vanguards or our Ohio's would scare the living shit out of them. Think about it before you wish to deprive those poor Scots of a job.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 4, 2017 19:42:21 GMT
As an amateur I readily admit I look to the numbers of a nation's navy. I realize that numbers do not always provide answers but the Royal Navy is a legend unto its self as it was once the mightiest navy in the world. I have read about the Royal Navy since I was a kid with Horatio Hornblower and later Richard Bolitho as companions and then my all time favorite novel "HMS Ulysses" by Alistair MacLean! I even understood the squadron ranking of admirals by the colors Red, White and Blue which was changed in the mid 1800s. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 4, 2017 20:05:32 GMT
Most people do Dave. You are not alone.
Numbers never prove the answers, never did. That is a fallacy.
Take your two fictional heroes, who are also two of my personal favorites, especially Bolitho, when in all the novels did numbers alone ever stand in their way?
In the novels it was always the capabilities of the man. The man, will always find the way to make the enemies superiority in numbers work for him and against the enemy that possesses them.
Smart, tough, and lean is always better than big, fat, and dumb. Go back and read your Gideon. The answer is there.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jun 5, 2017 12:51:02 GMT
Think about it before you wish to deprive those poor Scots of a job. I don't think that you really know what you are talking about Chuck, the Scottish independence party want to remove all nuclear submarines from their waters and all British military installations, they are pushing for another referendum and I think that this time they will win it, as Scotland voted against leaving the EU and are unhappy about Brexit. The British government realizes this, and also that jobs are badly needed around the Glasgow area, so the idea of sending the contract to Scotland is purely political. England has two ship building cities in Barrow and Newcastle, and these cities also have high unemployment, so its a shame we have to deprive our own just to butter up the Jocks with something they don't even want or deserve.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 5, 2017 14:02:00 GMT
Ian: I am talking about the utility of having nuclear powered submarines in the Royal Navy
I do not give a rats ass about the Scots, their jobs, or the political infighting between England and Scotland.
I care that the Royal Navy has submarines and I don't really care if they are built on Mars as long as the have them
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jun 5, 2017 15:39:02 GMT
QC My fictional heroes were always outnumbered because the Royal Navy was spread all over the world, The British Empire ya' know! Since most of Britain's enemies were in Europe the bulk of the fleet including the massive ships of the line remained in British waters, while the over worked frigates and sloops of war were cast all over the globe.
That was my view of the Royal Navy till the Falkland's conflict made me realize how small in number the British navy was in 1982. I recently read an article about the World's 5 largest navies and learned how small the RN had become in 2017.
I am unsure how much US strategy is affected by Britain's smaller navy but there must be concerns. Is the RN large enough to protect the home island as well as project British influence around the world? I don't believe so but I am very poorly informed about naval matters in general and British in particular. I know Great Britain has made large cuts in defensive spending but how adversely affected they are I have no idea.
I have read where there are proposals to increase the number of commissioned vessels in the US Navy and in light of the ongoing situation in the South Pacific with China and into the Sea of Japan with the issue of North Korea maybe we need more ships. I just don't know enough to make a sensible judgement just yet but I am reading and studying the matter. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jun 5, 2017 17:08:24 GMT
You are covering two hundred years of time here Dave, and a lot has changed during those two hundred years.
In the days of Hornblower and Bolitho, there was the Royal Navy period to guard the Empire. Today the Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians are charged with guarding their portions of the Commonwealth, and people like the Indians and others who were once part of Empire, guard their own sphere of influence, that was once part of the Royal Navy portfolio. So taking that alone into consideration the Royal Navy can become much smaller, and there is no real need to justify a reduction as being anything more than reduction of requirements.
You also see all of the western navies operating together, and interoperability is built into all of the ships of those navies. So that again reduces the requirement for the number of hulls. Exercises like RIMPAC bring regional navies into joint exercises to practice their skills. The Chinese Navy actually was a part of the last RIMPAC along with every major player in the Pacific.
The Japanese Defense Force naval arm is one of the largest, most modern, and most well trained in the world. They are fully capable of guarding the western Pacific by themselves if need be, and they include two very modern and highly capable carriers (which for political purposes they term destroyers). That too allows us and to some extent the RN and RAN to not need as many ships.
Then you get into the whole issue of the vastly increased capability of the ships themselves. We have covered that ground before, and no need exists to revisit it.
Now a couple of things that may seem a bit uncomfortable. Politicians for reasons of their own point to numbers or lack of numbers as political fodder to feed their attendant masses. Couple that with the fact that most people here in the US and in the UK think back to the vast fleets of WWII and equate those numbers with power. They want you to be frightened by the fact that we have less than 300 ships in commission, They want to thump their chests and tell you that we must build more to restore our place in the world. Well if it were only a matter of numbers then they would probably be right. but it isn't. Today it is a matter of capabilities and the interrelationships built with allied navies that makes numbers themselves take a back seat to 2017.
The next thing that is even more uncomfortable, even with today's news is that the partnerships built on military and economic alliances are what is important. One fact is true throughout history, strong trading partners do not make war on each other. I know I sound like that voice crying in the wilderness of rhetoric but the genesis of the European Union and NATO came out of immediate post war Europe. There has not been war in Europe since 1945 and that did not happen by accident. Allies do not air their dirty laundry in public. They do not denigrate an allied nation. They speak well and supportively in public at all times, and settle their difference among themselves in private.
Whenever you Tweet what you saw today regarding the Mayor of London, or Ian not liking the Scots, that feeds into the hands of enemies of the alliance. Even the smallest wedge issue is potent. I would ask Donald if we found ourselves tomorrow in deep shit, would he not wish the help and support of the UK including the Muslim mayor of London. I ask Ian were a disaster to befall Widnes, would he not welcome help from anywhere he could get it including Scotland? These are the things that allies do for each other, and they are more important than the petty squabbles that are always there.
If you start down the pathway of diplomatic, emotional, economic, political, and military tribalism, you are in fact descending the steps of hell itself. That is the very reason I constantly rail against all this confederate stuff. It is emotional tribalism that takes our eye of the ball of unity and future overall prosperity. It is in and of it self divisive, when unity is what is called for if we are to address the problems of today and tomorrow.
|
|