Military Organization and Terminology

[GerryCMBB]

Hello:

Need to educate myself so as to better understand briefings and books. I have found a hierarchy on Wikipedia:

---------------------------------

army group, front

army

corps

division

brigade

regiment or group

infantry battalion, U.S. Cavalry squadron, Commonwealth armoured regiment

infantry company, artillery battery, U.S. Cavalry troop, or Commonwealth armour or combat engineering squadron

platoon or Commonwealth troop

section or patrol

squad or crew

----------------------

1) Is this correct or can someone recommend a site that covers this better.

2) Also, when you see something like this, 2/505 PIR, does that mean the 2nd Battalion of the 505 PIR Regiment? And is that the only place the "/" notation is used?

Thanks,

Gerry

[Lt Belenko]

The US Army also had something called CCA, CCB and CCR some where between brigade and regiment. These were temporary combined combat groups of a battalion or two of infantry and armor organized just for a particular operation. Not 100% sure on this.

[wadepm]

They are called Combat Commands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_command

[GerryCMBB]

Are CC..s the same as the German Kamfgruppe?

[LongLeftFlank]

The one I always get hung up on is the difference between brigade and regiment. I believe that in all WWII armies regiments were nearly 100% dependent on their parent divisions for all forms of support including arty (other than company-level mortars) armour, supply, etc. Distinct from battalions, Regimental command staffs were large enough to plan and execute their own operations,drawing on higher echelon support as needed. Brigades in contrast, while also comprised of battalions were more like mini-divisions in that they were organized and staffed to function without a parent division. I'll let others build on / refute that though.

[JyriErik]

Are CC..s the same as the German Kamfgruppe?

Not sure if they were originally, but by the end of the war they were. CCR was intended as the reserve formation for the other 2, but by the end of the war was called CCC. There was definately a lot of cross attachment of assets based on their missions. They would be set tank heavy, infantry heavy or mixed.

Jyri

[JonS]

The one I always get hung up on is the difference between brigade and regiment.

A regiment, technically, is composed of bits that belong together. They were organised, raised, and trained to always work as a regimental team. So the 359th Infantry Regiment would have

1/359 Inf Bn (with companies A, B, C, D)

2/359 Inf Bn (with companies E, F, G, H)

3/359 Inf Bn (with companies I, K, L, M)

plus the 359th Regimental Cannon company, and other organic regimental bits and pieces.

Key point: all the bits of a regiment belong to that regiment, at all times.

A brigade, on the other had, is primarily the Brigade HQ and it's defence platoon. Attached to the Brigade (and under command of it) could be ... anything. But, generally, there'd be three infantry battalions which would tend to stay with the same brigade for entire campaigns, plus some other odds and ends which would come and go as required and/or available. Maybe some antitank guns. Maybe some tanks. Some engineers. Some logistics units. Whatever suits. The three infantry battalions might be from the same ... ah ... well, the correct term is 'regiment'*, but hopefully that doesn't confuse things. But they probably won't be. In Normandy the so-called Queens Brigade (actually 131st Inf Bde, in 7th Armd Div) was composed of 1/5, 1/6 and 1/7 Battalions of the Queens Royal Regiment, all from the Queens Regiment. But that was exceptional. More usual was 46th Brigade (in 15th Scottish Division), which consisted of 9th Cameronians, 2nd Glasgow Highlanders, and 7th Seaforth Highlanders.

Key point: The Brigade is an HQ which commands and controls units that are allocated to it for the duration of that allocation. But the Brigade is only responsible for them in a tactical sense.

Clear as mud?

Jon

* The British have never, as far as I know, used what other armies call a regiment as a tactical unit. A British Regiment is an administrative thing taht is composed of any number of batalions (in WWI some of the regiments ended up with over 20 battalions), and the regiment is responsible for raising, training, and sustaining those battalions while they're on operations by feeding them continuously with replacements. THe regiment is also responsible for maintaining regimental traditions and customs.

[LongLeftFlank]

Wait -- isn't Kampfgruppe an ersatz combined arms formation of multi-battalion size roughly analogous to the US "Task Force" . Combat Commands were permanent regiment-sized formations within certain US armoured divisions.

[akd]

The "kampfgruppe" did not have a fixed size, but a US Task Force or Commonwealth Battlegroup would be typical parallels.

[JonS]

Combat Commands were permanent regiment-sized formations within certain US armoured divisions.

AIUI, there wasn't supposed to be much of anything that was 'permanent' about Combat Commands. In a lot of ways they were very analogous to the British brigades - an HQ to which approx 3 bns plus support could be attached.

[JyriErik]

Wait -- isn't Kampfgruppe an ersatz combined arms formation of multi-battalion size roughly analogous to the US "Task Force" . Combat Commands were permanent regiment-sized formations within certain US armoured divisions.

Kampfgruppe could be almost any size. They could go from reinforced company size to divison size (or greater sometimes). While by the end of the war they would be put together from (the remnants) of multiple units, for much of the war they were created by attachments within divisions as needed for the current mission. A good example is how a company's heavy weapons platoon was used in combat, it was led by the most junior Lieutenant in the company & the squads were attached the the other platoons as needed by tactical needs so in battle it was little more than an empty HQ. The anti-tank, pioneer & other specialist platoons in a division were used similarly. While they were officially under the direct command of the division HQ, in combat they were put under the command of whichever sub-unit of the division required those units for the mission.

Jyri

[Michael Emrys]

JonS has it about right...in theory. The US adopted the Combat Command organization to try and duplicate the flexibility of the German Kampfgruppe. The armored division had a common pool of three armored battalions, three armored infantry battalions, and three SP artillery battalions, plus various support formations such as reconnaissance, TD, engineer, and the usual assortment of bits and pieces. From those, a CC would be assigned units from the pool to perform specific tasks for a set period of time. However, this turned out not to work as well as hoped in practice due to differences in military culture between the German and US armies. So in practice, the CCs tended to have the major units assigned to them on a more or less permanent basis as this allowed them to establish more efficient working relationships. The battalions, and even companies, could still get swapped around for specific operations, but would then tend to revert to their original set up.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

It's also worth noting the existence within the US army of regimental combat teams. These were infantry regiments with supplemental formations and units assigned to them on a semi-permanent basis and intended to operate independently of their parent divisional HQs. This was usually done where terrain or other operational conditions made it impractical to commit the division as a whole. Italy and the Pacific islands being examples.

Michael

[JonS]

JonS has it about right...in theory.[snip]

Indeed. That's why I said there wasn't supposed to be much of anything 'permanent' about the makeup of the CCs

In a lot of ways, the US CCs were conceptually very similar to the British brigades.

[flamingknives]

At the other end of the scale, the Commonwealth Section is analogous to the US Squad or German Gruppe.

Below that is teams or detachments.

[LukeFF]

And to further muddy things up, these days the U.S. Army has mainly gone away from regiments to brigade formations but in the process has kept the "Regiment" in the battalion's name (such as 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment).

The exceptions to this are the Armored Cavalry regiments and the 75th Ranger Regiment. Even then, most of the cavalry units, while officially called regiments, are actually organized as brigades. Confused yet?

[Boche]

Well I think most western armies that expect to be expeditionary have gone onto the brigade as its biggest maneuver unit, even if at home they maintain the name "regiment", as Luke said as basically administrative.

[Magpie_Oz]

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 tactical command of a larger formation.

An armoured regiment will not contain any soldiers from the Signals corps for example (ok is some cases they do as a special attachment).

IN earlier times in the US Army the term Task Force and Team was used in a similar manner. A Task Force was a battalion that had swapped out one of its companies and a Team was a company that had swapped out on of its platoons. So a Tank Battalion might cross attach a Tank Company to a Mech Battalion to create an Armoured Task Force and a Mech Task Force. Within the Tank Task force the tank company would detach one of its platoons to create two teams, one Tank heavy and one Infantry heavy. The other two Companies would remain "pure" and be termed companies not teams

In theory if an Infantry unit was created above battalion which contained only infantry it would be termed a Regiment. The term Brigade is used to indicate it has other supporting arms and services.

[Splinty]

Modern Regiments are more of a nod to the battalion's historical lineage than anything else. There is no other "official" connection.

[TrapOne]

Re: secondary sources, see two papers available online:

House, Jonathan. Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A Survey of 20th-Century Tactics, Doctrine, and Organization.

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/house/house.asp

Wilson, John B. MANEUVER AND FIREPOWER. THE EVOLUTION OF DIVISIONS AND SEPARATE BRIGADES.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm

[GerryCMBB]

Can anyone help me with my second question?

"2) Also, when you see something like this, 2/505 PIR, does that mean the 2nd Battalion of the 505 PIR Regiment? And is that the only place the "/" notation is used?"

Just noticed other examples in an Operation Epsom book:

II/12th SS Panzers

Is this the same meaning as above?

Thanks as always for the informative answers.

Gerry

[JonS]

Can anyone help me with my second question?

"2) Also, when you see something like this, 2/505 PIR, does that mean the 2nd Battalion of the 505 PIR Regiment?

Yes.

II/12th SS Panzers

Is this the same meaning as above?

Probably, although that looks a little odd. The II is 2nd Battalion, but off the top I don't recall a regiment called "12th SS Panzers".

[Magpie_Oz]

Probably, although that looks a little odd. The II is 2nd Battalion, but off the top I don't recall a regiment called "12th SS Panzers".

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?

[JonS]

Yeah, my mistake. You are correct, it's the 2nd battalion of the 12th SS Panzer Regt, which was the panzer regt in 12th SS Panzer Div.

FWIW, II/12.SS-Pz.Regt was equipped with PzIV. I/12.SS-Pz.Regt had Panthers, while the regiment as a whole also contained a company of engineers, and another of self-propelled FlaK.

[winkelried]

Can anyone help me with my second question?

"2) Also, when you see something like this, 2/505 PIR, does that mean the 2nd Battalion of the 505 PIR Regiment? And is that the only place the "/" notation is used?"

Gerry

In addition you'll see on the German side something like 3./xxx Regiment which means 3rd company of the xxx Regiment. Like the US and CW (A to ... coy) the Germans numbered all companies in a regiment from 1 to xxx. There often also were some companies which were not part of a batallion (like I. or II. batallion) like 13./xxx Regiment 14./xxx Regiment - this were regimental anti-tank, pioneer or flak units depending on the TO&E.

I think the US and CW also used C/415th Infantry Regiment to designate a company. You would then know which batallion the company belonged to.