Question on Battalions

[Scipio]

Gentlemen,

I wonder if the US and CW battalions in WWII were serially numbered.

As example, lets take an US Infantry Regiment. Would it always have a 1st & 2nd ... Battalion, or would it be a unique shall we say 527th and 628th Battalion, currently attached to the 40th US Infantry Regiment. If the later is correct, is there a list of existing (and not existing) Battalions for the US and CW forces?

[Migo441]

I believe that, yes, US Infantry* Regiments generally use sequential Battalion numbering starting with 1.

UK Infantry was not nearly so tidy. In their case, it was common to split the Battalions from a given Regiment (typically drawn from a geographic area, e.g., Royal East Kent Regiment) and allocate them to different Infantry Brigades. For example, the ORBAT for the 15th (Scottish) Infantry Division in France 1944 included the following infantry Battalions:

44th (Lowland) Infantry Brigade

- 8th Battalion, Royal Scots

- 6th Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers

- 6th Battalion, King's Own Scottish Borderers

46th (Highland) Infantry Brigade

- 2nd Battalion, Glasgow Highlanders

- 7th Battalion, Seaforth Highlanders

- 9th Battalion, Cameronians (Scottish Rifles)

227th (Highland) Infantry Brigade

- 10th Battalion, Highland Light Infantry

- 2nd Battalion, Gordon Highlanders

- 2nd Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

So many parent Regiments represented and non-sequential Battalion numbering within Brigades including several cases with more than one Battalion of the same number!

* Specialized Battalions (Reconnaissance, Engineers, etc...) are a whole different matter.

[Trooper117]

From an army intelligence point of view, it's not good doctrine to have all your forces numbered in sequence.

It makes it much easier for the enemy to track and identify units... at least that was what we were told when I was a young soldier

[Rinaldi]

The US didn't use the Continental brigade system; regiments fought as wholes (where as a regiment like the RTR would have its battalions spread over many brigades, divisions, corps); its why they were numerically sequenced as it had little impact on OPSEC. A note that the Germans used centralized Regiments over Brigades late war as well.

Not all US units were sequentially numbered though; units like the late 1944 model Armored divisions had no RHQs; so they would have individual AIBs with often odd numbering(10th AIB, 51st, 53rd).

[Warts 'n' all]

One of the drawbacks of the "Regimental" system was that it hindered building a "Divisional" "epsrit de corps". Too many officers in the British Army engaged in point scoring against officers from different regiments within their parent division. The numbering system within the Whermacht and US Army helped to foster a pride in your division, as a whole.

[mjkerner]

There was at least one exception, the 100th Battalion (Nisei)/133/34ID, later with the 442nd.

[Scipio]

Okay, thanks for the help!

[Bulletpoint]

So do I understand it correctly that a battallion is the biggest subunit of an army that won't be split up and mixed ad hoc with other units?

[Rinaldi]

So do I understand it correctly that a battallion is the biggest subunit of an army that won't be split up and mixed ad hoc with other units?

No that's not necessarily the case. A German kampfgruppe is adhoc by definition and has no definitive size; it could be a reinforced company, it could be a regiment-sized all-arms force. Likewise, in 1940s parlance, a US Army task force didn't necessarily have a definitive size - and it could consist of elements of a battalion broken up and "married" to elements of other Battalions. A common 'marriage' of units would be a tank company to an infantry battalion, or during more maneuver oriented operations an entire tank company to an entire infantry company.

In modern military parlance now, a "Taskforce" is usually a battalion sized element of all-arms (e.g: 1 Company of Leopard 2s, 2 Companies of Mech Infantry) where as smaller elements are now called "Company Teams" (e.g 1 platoon of leopard 2s, 3 platoons of mech infantry).

[YankeeDog]

So do I understand it correctly that a battallion is the biggest subunit of an army that won't be split up and mixed ad hoc with other units?

Difficult thing to generalize about. Depends a lot upon the type of Battalion.

Looking at the WWII U.S. Army in the ETO specifically, a "straight leg" rifle Battalion would very rarely be broken up. But breaking up other formations termed "Battalions" was fairly common. For example, 4.2" Chemical Mortar Battalions were usually split up into individual Companies and assigned to various units when and where needed. Engineer Battalions similarly are often split up into smaller constituent parts.

And even combat infantry battalions are sometimes split up. For example, the Wehrmacht sometimes split Panzergrenadier Infantry Battalions, and assigning individual Platoons of Panzergrenadiers to specific Panzer Companies to provide infantry escort. The 11th Panzer Division did this in the Battle of Arracourt, for example. The initial probing attacks at Arracourt were comprised of usually about one company of Panthers, accompanied by a platoon or so of Panzergrenadiers riding on the decks of the Panthers.