Jump to content

Magpie_Oz

Members
  • Content Count

    1,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Magpie_Oz

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Australia
  1. Interestingly however the notion of referring to a body of men on the battlefield as a regiment spawned mainly from the nature of how that body of men had been raised. The English civil war units on the Royalist side were referred to as "Slanning's Regiment", or what ever, due to the fact that the body of men were raised from a particular area, by a particular person who usually also paid the expenses for training, provisioning and equipping the unit. The Parliamentary Infantry, the public forces if you will, were referred to as Brigades. So really the use of the term regiment was still r
  2. Hmmm, I'd always though the US were trying to adopt a flexible "modular" arrangement so that the basic building block was the battalion and then higher formations were clipped together in a mission oriented organisation. I believe that extended out of the whole "Pentatomic" disaster. Or it could be a highly developed mechanism to "stuff the lads around", which seems to be the end result, if not necessarily the original intent, of most Army policy.
  3. It isn't a matter of how they choose to refer to themselves but rather the FACT that a regiment as a tactical formation only has meaning for those other than knuckle-draggers, as has always been the case. Not sure what you are getting at tho', wouldn't other arms just be soldiers without heavy weapons? or in some cases WITH much heavier weapons? Obviously Armour and Cav are already very much in the game to give the rockapes something to cower behind, as are the Arty, being the ones who actually do the "destroy" part of "Close with and Destroy" and Aviation as well. Sigs are already there
  4. Only for infantry Nope, as JonS said earlier, pretty sure the British army has never actually fielded a regiment of infantry check out this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Battle_of_the_Waterloo_Campaign The meaning of Regiment has never changed, it has always been different between Infantry and everyone else.
  5. http://www.amazon.com/Lockheed-C130-Hercules-Peter-Smith/dp/1840371978 http://www.webjam.com/robbythec130 ?????????
  6. But no the is precisely the point it wouldn't as an Infantry Regiment is purely admin/ceremonial. The Colonel of the Regiment is usually a retired officer with the Colonel in Chief being a Royal. All "corps pure" unit organisations stop at battalion level, it is just that battalion level units in most things other than Infantry are termed "Regiment".
  7. No that is not correct the term Regiment is used in Signals , Engineers, Artillery, Armour (and others) as battlefield formations. Regiments in these units are the same comparative command level as a Battalion, without containing as many people. Often such supporting units are often not deployed in that large a group. For example the current 1 Armoured Division of the UK contains 7th Armoured Brigade 20th Armoured Brigade 1st Division Headquarters and Signal Regiment 1 Regiment Army Air Corps (Lynx) 28 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers 1 Regiment, Royal Military Police 1 Logistic S
  8. Have a look here http://www.feldgrau.com/12ss.html I think the German formations seemed to use 12 SS Panzer Regiment and 12 SS Artillery Regiment etc to mean "the Panzer Regiment of the 12th SS Division". Possibly pointing again to Regiment denoting the linage and arms "pure" arrangement?
  9. As a general rule of thumb in Commonwealth organisations a Regiment is a Corps "pure" formation from which units are detached to make up other units. So an Infantry Regiment, Royal Australian Regiment or Middlesex Regiment for example will only have infantry. But the battalions of those regiments are attached to form the actual tactical manoeuvre units. This is why Signals, Arty, Engineers and Armour all go by Troop, Squadron, Regiment. As to those levels all members of the unit are part of the same corps. The notion being that the Tps or Sqns or Regiments themselves are deployed under
  10. Well the Vogons are going to kill us all for a Hyperspace bypass anyway so the Kettles won't be a problem. And if the Keplertwentytoobians have unfriended us, then screw them, who needs them
  11. "Pretty cool. Let's send a radio signal to Kepler 22b! Then we only have to wait 1200 years for the response " "Angels or Apes but never men" Issac Asimov
  12. LOL how about Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove ? Which shows that contrary to : "That is one side of the equation I think almost nobody thought of either until the late 80s at least, Magpie." they were thinking along those lines in 1964, also "Fail Safe" from the same year. Might want to also check out Bertrand Russell, the penny dropped for him the same day Fat Man dropped for Nagasaki
  13. I reckon the silliest thing with these low level weapons as it puts the ability to goad a strategic response down at the Tac level. I'd expect that the chain of escalation would be pretty quick from Davo to Johnno to Thunderjet to Stratojet to Atlas to ........ sticks and stones
  14. Nancy boys. On that, interesting to note that SS uniforms are popular with the Gay community, those guys certainly have an eye for fashion.
×
×
  • Create New...