http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/index.html
OK, there have been occasional discussions of exactally what is meant by all
these various organizational terms that get thrown around (honestly,
how many non-military people here know the difference
between an Engineer Group and an Engineer Brigade?) and I finally found a
place that breaks down in layman's terms exactally what the US Army means by
each of these.
Major differences among our allies: French call a battalion a regiment. Their
divisions are oversized brigades.
The Commonwealth moves all terms for cavalry/armor
units down one level from us, so that a battalion is called a regiment, a
company is called a squadron, and a platoon is called a troop.
For such an incredible bunch of _weenies_ the FAS has
one of the most useful websites on the internet for wargamers.
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Commonwealth moves all terms for cavalry/armor
> --- John Leary <john_t_leary@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John,
Yeah.
But for a... picking an example at random, marine biologist:), I figured the
evolution of the Regimental system over the past 300 years in both the
US and UK was a bit complex, from multi-BN regiments
to single-BN regiments, to regiments with BNs on
active service and others in depot (some Brit regiments had 30 BNs active
during WWI), with a sideline on the CARS system...
No.
G'day,
> But for a. . . picking an example at random, marine
Thanks;)
> I figured the evolution of the
I had sort of just reverted to remembering "most do it look that, except the
Brits who always have to be different...";)
Thanks for the link
> I had sort of just reverted to remembering "most do it look that,
Funny, I thought it was those rebelious colonies that had to be different;)
Jeremey
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:14:53 -0700 (PDT), John Leary
<john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> This was standard during the 1800s, the one
Not true of the US during the American Civil War.
The standard company size, on paper, was 100 men. This was often achieved when
a new regiment was raised during the war.
Volunteer regiments, both north and south, had a "standard" of 10 companies,
giving a regimental strength of 1000 men, not 600.
Before the war regular US army regiments were organized about the same way as
volunteer regiments. During the war, Regular Army regiments were organized in
2 to 3 battalions of 8 companies, for a paper strength of 1600 to 2400 men.
This structure was pretty loose, though, particularly with volunteer
regiments. The 66th Georgia was raised in 1864 with 1500 men, consisting of
one battalion of 10 companies and an attached battalion of 3 over sized
companies.
The average regimental size was between 300 and 600 during the war, but this
was usually due to attrition through disease, combat, and men being found
unfit for service.
> Not true of the US during the American Civil War.
> --- Germ <germ@germy.co.uk> wrote:
Yeah.
If you Brits had a consistent system, then that would be an acceptable way of
phrasing it. But with the changes in your structure, plus the names vs.
numbers issue, amalgamations (no US unit has ever been saddled
with a designation like "17/21st Lancers"), plus
stupidities like every Brit Royal Artillery battalion being part of the same
regiment while most infantry
units are single-bat, etc, etc, etc it's safe to say
"The Brits have to be different".
The modern US usage is rather closer to Brit Napoleonic usage than the modern
Brit usage.
> Yeah.
Consistency is boring. We're not being different, we're just adding character
:)
Jeremey
JohnA said:
> If you Brits had a consistent system, then that would
It's an intelligence ploy. You can picture opposing intel officers
swearing under their breath: "17/21 Lancers-what does that mean? 14th
Queen's Own Light Grenadier Guards Rifle Regiment? What the heck is that? On
this photo, this unit is supposedly a regiment, that one is listed as a
battalion but it's three times the size...did someone switch labels again? The
computer translation lists Highlanders as mountain troops, is that right?"
> It's an intelligence ploy. You can picture opposing intel officers
Makes you wonder what they would think of something like KOYLI, doesn't
it...
> It's an intelligence ploy. You can picture opposing intel officers
That's easy - now try "First Aid Nursing Yeomanry" and "Honourable
Artillery Company"
Chris
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
Should you require further information please contact us using the details
below.
website: http://www.acuma.co.uk
> At 10:48 AM -0400 7/9/02, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Here's a thought. Can one see in the GZG verse the use of Yomanry coming back
into real flavor for units that are drawn from a specific planet? Perhaps even
to the extent that they provide their own weapons and transport? I'd expect
that the Tribal nature of the NAC military forces would actually be magnified
by having regional and planet based colonies spread around from place to
place. Especially if on a given colony planet you have two major population
centers on separate continents to use as a source for manpower.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT), John Leary
<john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I would submit the photographs by Brady as being
Well, not to beat it to death, but 1000 men and up regiments were fairly
common during the war... when they were raised. As I mentioned, they dropped
in size fairly rapidly, mostly due to disease and the fact that recruitment
officers weren't that picky. Combat strength was, as I mentioned, between 300
and 600 on average (often even a lot less). There is an account of a Union
heavy artillery regiment being pressed into service as an infantry regiment
during Grant's Overland campaign. It was at full strength. There are numerous
references to the soldiers having never seen its like, it being so huge in
numbers of men.
We're not in disagreement here. I didn't see anything in your original post
that said you were talking about combat strength. I will argue that if you're
talking average regiment size, 600 is a little high.
Oh, and my source is the Official Records (not always the most accurate source
for battle reports, but usually pretty good for unit strengths).
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:36:01 +0100 "Germ" <germ@germy.co.uk> writes:
Unique, different, picky, one of those adjectives. <grin>
Gracias,
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:06:33 +0100 "Germ" <germ@germy.co.uk> writes:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:48:28 -0400 "laserlight@quixnet.net"
> <laserlight@quixnet.net> writes:
Works best on allies separated by a common language.
[quoted original message omitted]
From: "John Sowerby" <sowerbyj@fiu.edu>
> >It's an intelligence ploy. You can picture opposing intel officers
14th
> >Queen's Own Light Grenadier Guards Rifle Regiment? What the heck is