What was a division? How was it used?

[HarryInk]

And where can I find out more about divisions/corps and their use?

To be honest, I know a divison is a unit comprising 9-11 btns usually arranged in 3 or 4 sub-divisions (regts/brigades)+ arty etc. etc.. But I want to understand more how divisions worked in the line (and corps).

Also, are there any games that try to simulate combat @ divisional level?

[Michael Dorosh]

Airborne Assault was a divisional look, with company sized units IIRC.

[Bonxa]

Ah, you would learn a great deal about divisions if you join up on http://www.CMMC2.org . We are simulating a Soviet Army pitted against a German Panzer Corps. I can sure tell you that the divisional commanders have plenty to do.

[Andreas]

The following is my view, and most likely completely wrong. It also applies to the west and Germany, not the Red Army in WW2.

A division was the largest tactical combat formation, and the only one of these capably of conducting sustained combat operations with its own resources over the period of a few days, usually. Higher, operational formations such as Corps and Armies were a command staff that could not conduct combat operations with its own resources. Lower formations such as Brigade, Regiment, and below, would not have the weapons mix and logistical capacity to conduct combat with their own resources for very long. In the German military parlance they were called 'Grosseinheiten' (large units).

In terms of units, a division would normally consist of three infantry, one artillery regiment, and divisional support units, consisting of specialised combat formations (pioneers, AT, recce, maybe AA, SPAT, signals) and logistical formations (supply columns, medical, postal, butcher, baker etc), and maybe a divisional training battalion. 'Teeth' and 'Tail' units.

Artillery would usually be two or three battalions of light field artillery (usually 10cm variety) and one of medium (15cm), unless you are in a Commonwealth formation, where they all are 25-pdrs, but lots of them. Normally one battery would be assigned to each battalion.

In operations, a division could be assigned its own sector and expected to take care of it with its own resources. In the line, the standard situation would be to have a two-up, one back arrangement. With divisional assets either in reserve at the command of the divisional commander, or assigned to the regiments. Artillery would usually stay under the control of the divisional staff, with close relations to the units upfront.

A divisional sector would vary in length depending on the sort of battle the division was engaged in. A few kilometres for an attack, and 10-30km in defense, depending on the terrain and strength of the division.

[Patrick Brazil]

Originally posted by HarryInk:

Also, are there any games that try to simulate combat @ divisional level?

"Battles in Normandy" is a fun divisional level game. It might be just what your lookin' for.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Patrick Brazil:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HarryInk:

Also, are there any games that try to simulate combat @ divisional level?

"Battles in Normandy" is a fun divisional level game. It might be just what your lookin' for. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bonxa:

Ah, you would learn a great deal about divisions if you join up on http://www.CMMC2.org . We are simulating a Soviet Army pitted against a German Panzer Corps. I can sure tell you that the divisional commanders have plenty to do.

While I dropped out of CMMC2 a long time ago for a variety of reasons, I can only recommend participation in such operational campaigns. I commanded the virtual 43rd Wessex in CMMC1, and it certainly was an eye-opener in terms of a lot of military things.

[Bone_Vulture]

Harry, if you're looking for lighter division level gaming, Hearts of Iron II is great entertainment. Also probably one of the best games to experiment alternate endings to WW2, although the AI is still no match to a serious war gamer.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Oddly enough, there are very few good operational games. The Operational Art of War is pretty interesting for a lot of good reasons, but was designed to be too flexible. That may sound strange but it is true. The engine was made to handle any battle in the 20th century, but was never particularily good at any one era.

Matrix Games has come up with some very serious efforts, but have a lot of problems getting these games onto the market. They have three or four that look to be amazing, but have been "in development" for a loooong time.

In fact, I wonder why there is such a gaping hole in the market. It seems to me that there is a large community out there that would love to see a new operational level game with the kind of research and depth that we love about CM.

Cheers

Paul

[Zalgiris 1410]

On the subject of divisional level simulateded gaming I agree with the refferences about the Airbourne Assualt Highway to the Reich being a very good current enough option. I don't think that Hearts of Iron would help in understanding the divisional level of commanding brigades and asset battlions. Bone is right it is light but it is more about the strategic use of divisions rather than the actual purpose of them. Fun though all the same but I've only got the first version to go by. (It is more about production!)

There were some old games that fit what I think Henry is asking about. I'm talking ten years ago I had and still have some World at War games such as Stalingrad, Crusader (the British Operation in North Africa), Normandy and some VE 50th aniversary compolation which included Operation Market Garden and Velikyi Luki which was a mini Stalingrad near Rzhev which took place at the same time. These were divisional level games in the sense that you moved units like battlions and special companies about on a map where one hex represented one square km. Does anyone remember what I'm talking about or remember something similar? There were a lot of Avalon Hill board games in the same vogue where one hex was one km and the counters were battlions that you moved and had to fight with a roll of the dice die chart. (Thats how it was done before PCs, the old fashioned way!) They also had Corps level ones also.

The World at War games were by Avalon Hill (just checked which makes sense) and there must be blokes on these forums who know what I mean. Any info would be much appreciated on where they have gone these days. I also had Close Combat with them on my old PC which was flogged and I have been unable to install them on my upgraded PC. Bloody miss them these days!

Anyway, those type of games might be more along the lines of what Henry meant. I agree with jacobs ladder that the Decisive Battles Series is lacking in depth and not that enjoyable but I think that that is because it mainly is regiments that are represented. I don't recomend them.

[ July 09, 2005, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

Anyway, those type of games might be more along the lines of what Henry meant. I agree with jacobs ladder that the Decisive Battles Series is lacking in depth and not that enjoyable but I think that that is because it mainly is regiments that are represented. I don't recomend them.

Exactly my criticism of the system (well, apart from it being hex-based and IGO/UGO which, generally, sucks). Divisions are broken down into three or four parts. Usually you get two or three regiments and a recon unit and that's about it. Divisional artillery is supposedly factored into the regimental firepower, and all other divisional assets are absent.

Turns are 24 hours in length, which doesn't work at all. Two 24 hour turns in IGO/UGO add up to 48 hours of movement in a single day. Unless you give only 12 hours to each player which of course would beg the question: Which 12 hours do I get? Night is not taken into account in any way (which is almost comical considering how important a role interdiction played in Normandy).

Generally, the series offers no balance between authenticity and playability. It heavily favours the latter over the former to an absurd degree.

Cheers

Paul

[Zalgiris 1410]

Please take no offence jacob ladder2 since I have read you a lot and respect you. I am not going to quote you immediately from above me from here as you did from me immediately above you from here, but for everybody who needs to, just clime the ladder and refer to the immediately above discourse to follow along.

(Paul, you copied as a quote my last paragraph!)

You are right about the playable gameyness of the IGO/UGO machanics of those kinds of simulations. Similar to the Panzer General series which were much much better in enjoyment terms than the Decissive Battles Series. That said PG was at least a combined arms simulation that work well but too generically unrealistic as it was duellistically opperational-tactical.

The Decisive Battle Series was absolutely bloody hopeless so we are agreed. It was terribly regressive even childish considering all the research and developing they must have done. Although I think that in IGO/UGO simulations it requires a forced suspention of reality and you are meant to attempt to believe that each of the players shots are actually taking place at the same time!

This is why I strongly recomend the Avalon Hill World at War series. While they developed out of their IGO/UGO board games these had six turns a day for which each player plotted movements and gave orders to all their battlions and assests before an uninterupted simulatenious simulated action phase. It was kind of like CM in this respect, except that instead of 1 minute turns with what amounts to miniture figurines, it was with counters that represent divisional assest formations occupying 1 square km hexes.

I also do recomend Talensofts' East Front which uses platoon half counter half miniture figurine sized units which as a simulation falls between the 2 levels and with up to mixed divisional level command responsibilities. Unfortunately I don't know if it is still around. Pay to register and subscribe I guessed.

I have come down from that divisional level to this tactical level. From World at War and Talensofts' East Front via Close Combat to CM and patiently to CMx2. For HenryInk and everyone else IMHO if you want to go higher than CM and if Avalon Hill hasn't kept the World at War series current or follwed upon them then the only suggestion I have, as above, is the Highway to the Reich Airbourne Assualt game. (Poor bloody moi!)

[ July 11, 2005, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Krautman]

Great info!

Do regiments themselves have added support units, e.g. an infantry regiment having an extra artillery battery/battalion? Or is an infantry regiment just a couple of infantry battalions?

What about AT guns and HE chuckers? In CMBB, most infantry battalions have ~2 AT guns. How many AT guns would a battalion have if all (if they exist: regimental and) divisional AT guns were distributed among the infantry battalions? (Might be useful for a battalion-sized scenario)

And what the heck is a brigade?

EDIT: Damn, i guess there are as many different ways of writing "battalion" as there are languages, and i always have to check other posts to get it right. "Bataillon", is that french?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Krautman:

Great info!

Do regiments themselves have added support units, e.g. an infantry regiment having an extra artillery battery/battalion? Or is an infantry regiment just a couple of infantry battalions?

What about AT guns and HE chuckers? In CMBB, most infantry battalions have ~2 AT guns. How many AT guns would a battalion have if all (if it exists: regimental and) divisional AT guns were distributed among the infantry battalions? (Might be useful for a battalion-sized scenario)

And what the heck is a brigade?

A brigade is roughly equivalent to a regiment, depending on the army (two or more battalions).

A German infantry regiment did not have its "own" artillery though in practice a battalion of the divisional artillery regiment (still with me?) might be associated closely with that infantry regiment. Each German infantry regiment, however, did possess its own "artillery" in the form of its organic mortars and anti-tank guns.

The Germans used the "brigade" title early in the war for Schützen units (the forerunners of the Panzergrenadiers), and later in the war for assault guns (Sturmgeschützen) for just two examples. The ersatz und ausbildungs (training and replacement) units of the Grossdeutschland division were termed a brigade in the last half of the war or so IIRC because there were several different training units included; armour, artillery, infantry etc.

No doubt Dandelion can give a more detailed answer.

EDIT - to answer your edit, Bataillon is also German. It's funny how many military words are common in European languages. A captain in a German cavalry unit was called Rittmeister (the Red Baron was one); in Poland he is a Rotmisterz. A senior private in the German Army was a Gefreiter while in the Russian Army he was a Yefreytor. Major seems to be common to many languages.

[ July 11, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

Please take no offence jacob ladder2 since I have read you a lot and respect you. I am not going to quote you immediately from above me from here as you did from me immediately above you from here, but for everybody who needs to, just clime the ladder and refer to the immediately above discourse to follow along.

Hello. Can't see any reason to take offense. Our views are pretty much the same, after all.

On the topic of brigades, they can be thought of, generally, as units which are more easily controlled than divisions and which can be "attached" to other units for specific purposes. An infantry division, or motorized division, might have an attached AT or assault gun brigade if the specialized or extra firepower were required.

The Russians, for example, organized their armour into corps (two or three divisions) in the early war, but later found they couldn't control such large formations. They later disbanded them and formed tank divisions, disbanded those, and formed tank brigades. The smaller brigade could be maneuvered more easily in order to meet the threat of German armour.

The Russians also liked to do the same thing with artillery. They kept most of their guns (organized into regiments or brigades) at corps or army level and assigned them as needed.

Armies also maintained battalions for specialized purposes (like the American tank destroyer battalions). The Russians had independant motorcycle regiments and everybody had engineer units of different sizes for everything from demolitions to bridging to road construction.

These are units which serve specific purposes on the battlefield and do not need to be present everywhere (an infantry division on the defensive, for example, is not likely to need bridging equipment). They are usually controlled at the corps or army level and assigned where they are required.

Basically.

Cheers

Paul

[John DiFool the 2nd]

No love for Schwerpunkt's Russo-German War then?

Kind of a throwback, some annoying quirks, but having

fun with my modded '42 campaign...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Krautman:

Great info!

Do regiments themselves have added support units, e.g. an infantry regiment having an extra artillery battery/battalion? Or is an infantry regiment just a couple of infantry battalions?

What about AT guns and HE chuckers? In CMBB, most infantry battalions have ~2 AT guns. How many AT guns would a battalion have if all (if they exist: regimental and) divisional AT guns were distributed among the infantry battalions? (Might be useful for a battalion-sized scenario)

It depends on which nation you are looking at, andd during which time period.

Germany early war:

Regiment includes:

1x AT gun company (37/50mm, ISTR 12 guns)

1x regimental gun company (6x 75mm 2x 150mm)

3x infantry battalion includes

3x rifle company

1x heavy company includes

3x sMG platoon

1x mortar platoon

US late war:

Regiment includes

1x Cannon company (6x 105mm)

3x Infantry battalion includes

3x Rifle company

1x support company (HMG, AT, Mortars)

Commonwealth 1944 NWE

Brigade includes

3x Rifle Battalion includes

4x Rifle Company

1x Support Company includes

6x 3"mortar

6x 6-pdr ATG

1x Carrier platoon

1x Wasp FT platoon

Not a lot of time now, so there will be lots of errors in detail, but you should get the picture.

[JonS]

gotta run, but this should give you an idea of how US inf divs were organised:

http://www.100thww2.org/100org/100org.html

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No doubt Dandelion can give a more detailed answer.

Nope, I think you're doing fine. The brigade really is a mystery. The English shed some light on the inner meaning of the term "brigade" by making it a verb as well.

It's all French you know, the terms. Army, corps, division, regiment, battallion, squadron, company, platoon, squad, corporal, sergeant, Lieutenant, captain, major, colonel, general, marshal - the lot of it is from the French. Terminologically it all starts with Army. Division means "subdivision of army", regiment means "subdivision of division" and so on. Corps, as Brigade, are things apart and initially only used by such people as cavalrymen and artillerymen notoriously unable to grasp the beauty of an orderly arrangement.

It's all French just the same. That's why it is so similar in all nations, everybody just copied it straight off and now pronounce it all according to their limited French language skills.

The German army stayed strangely true to French spelling - Germany otherwise emphasises the connection between spelling and sound very much, a trait for which the French are not known.

There are some exceptions. You mentioned one - Gefreiter, is pure german meaning 'liberated' (from manual labour). Webel, as in Feldwebel, Hauptfeldwebel et cetera, is a medieval German feudal, non-noble military rank. Hauptman is a derivate of the German word for Chieftain (compare UK/US "chief of staff"). Rittmeister is also genuine German as are all the other -meister titles common in logistic services, or such as Wachtmeister (Wacht in this case meaning watch, as in "not on my watch" to speak with Mr Bush). Meister means a person having completed their professional training. The Fahnen- titles, such as Fahnenjunker and Fähnrich, are German translations of French titles of officer candidates. Fahne of course meaning banner or flag, Junker means boy and Fähnrich is a kind of diminutive for a person attached to the regiment (flag). And so on.

But most of it is pure French. Wonder why they didn't rename them all to Freedom Company Commander and Freedom Platoon Commander etc Nah kidding, no intent to begin that debate here.

Cheers

Dandelion

[Krautman]

All, thanks again for the info.

Since when are armies actually divided up into "modern" battalions, regiments, divisions etc, i mean as opposed to the antique and medieval army organisation?

Does anyone know why some german NCOs were called Wachtmeister? I thought this was a police rank.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

Hello. Can't see any reason to take offense. Our views are pretty much the same, after all.

Cheers

Paul

All fine, beauti mate, no worries, but I was just being careful to be sure to be sure. (Can you tell that I have transported Irish Convict ancesters.)

Thanks Dandelion for the leason in nomenclature.

Picking up on the subject of the correct ortharised tables of establishment and equipment that has come up in this thread, I would like to know specifically the amount and therefore the ratio of HMGs that will be historically accurate for British and Commonwealth Divisions. I know that they had a Heavy (Vickers) MG Battalion (as I understand the British and Commonwealth named regiment systems) in each Division, but I don't know the numbers of HMGs nor mortors either. Can anybody with the correct information please enlighten me?

I ask this because some of my reading indicates to me that the Anglo-Americans seemed surprised or irritated by the amount of HMGs they faced in Normandy. They also were respectful with regards to the OTE&E of 81mm mortors as well!

Any good help most appretiated thank you.

[ July 14, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[JasonC]

The pattern for all later inherent articulated structures in western armies was the Roman army. The ancestor of the company is the century. The ancestor of the battalion is the cohort. The ancestor of the division is the legion.

But there was an intermediary form of considerable importance in the middle ages, based on the mobilization scheme of those times. Modern armies start with attempts to modify the medieval set up with Roman models before the reformer's eye.

The medieval set up was captains in charge of what we would call companies and colonels in charge of what we would call regiments. Both were owner-proprietors of military enterprises, which contracted with kings. "Earl" is originally a king's agent raising a regiment. Companies as in that which captains are in charge of predate the modern idea of a "company" as a business - mercenary companies are the original kind.

Captains raised bands of men to fight, in return for direct promises of wages, spoil, support in peacetime, etc. They then tried to make a profit by extracting more than promised to their men, either from their superiors or by looting the enemy during the war.

Their superiors included royal officers - earls or counts - who held charters from kings to muster men owing service. In practice, these obligations were replaced by taxes - men paid for someone to go in their place. Captains supplied those place-men. The earl or count collected payments for replacements and paid captains who found the actual willing men. The earl or count also mustered whoever did not pay for a professional replacement.

Generals who commanded actual field forces or wings of them led groups of these subunits on a thoroughly ad hoc basis. These were dukes - duke means general, basically. They came from the upper nobility as a matter of course, and successful ones always managed to get large land grants out of it. The generalship typically came first. A "battle" was the medieval term for a wing or section of an army commanded by a general or duke - typically only 2-3 on a field. (Linguistically this is the origin of "battalion", but a battle was a much large unit; battalion originally means subset of a battle).

In early modern times, attempts were made to standardize all of this and to fit it to modern state finance, which was based on tax farming rather than pretend military obligations. Colonel, Spanish for "head of column", dates to this period. It is a modernization of counts and earls, as leader of a standing army subunit rather than an ad hoc levy. It was still the title of an owner-proprietor. Nobles owned their positions as colonels and treated their regiments as extensions of their household. The tradition of keeping table at a regimental mess is a survival from medieval courts.

Early modern reformers were trying to create standing armies as tools of monarchs meant to be independent of the nobility and able to act against it when necessary. Despotism, enlightened or otherwise, was the goal. Drill and modern barracks were the means. Regular armies were kept in existence in time of peace, under regular officers. But initially those officers came from the same class of military entrepeneurs who had been the captains and colonels of the immediately preceding period. The basic story is tax farming and finance allowed kings to fund standing armies and this made them far more independent of their noble military proprietors than before.

At the same time, the reformers doing all this consciously look to Roman models. Maurice of Nassau is usually cited as a key figure in this - he was the most important military figure on the Dutch side of their long war of revolt against Spain. He introduced modern drill. The Spanish already had a military system with regular standing units up to regiment, formations larger than that were still pretty ad hoc.

The next great innovator was Gustavus Adolphus, who integrated all arms forces (artillery in battle as opposed to just as a seige weapon - bizarrely, artillery had often been civilian contractors before him) and introduced regular conscription, among other things. He had what were essentially brigades.

Note that the term "to brigade" originally meant to task together for a particular battle or mission, rather like we would speak of combat teams, and did not designate an echelon level. There were regular practices that led to treating "brigade" as a formation term, though. The best companies in each regiment gathered into one crack formation would be a "brigade" of grenadier companies, for example.

Regiments were initially about the size of modern battalions. They stayed that size in the cavalry essentially well into the 19th century. In the infantry, regiments got appreciably larger in the 18th century and especially the age of the French revolution and Napoleon.

Regiment retained its medieval connotations and an owner-proprietor. Battalions formed within regiments as the forces they would actually send off to war. Initially, just one. But the proprietor and mobilization mechanism would remain at home, as it had became a financial organization rather than a tactical one. It could then "raise" another battalion. Soon a regiment regularly fielded several battalions and kept another at home as a garrison and training force, nucleus for replacements, etc.

The French revolutionaries attempted to regularize all this but changed their own schemes repeatedly. They disliked the term "regiment" because of its medieval connotations and said "demi-brigade" instead, half a brigade. It didn't stick, any more than renaming months or recounting years from 1789. It was still typical for a regiment to have 2-3 battalions in the field and another in garrison. The Brits were all over the map on this, by comparison - some regiments had only single battalions and others had dozens.

The division was also regularized in the 18th century. There were experiments in making it a force of all arms by including cavalry, but these rarely worked in practice. The formation was too small to merit all arms, lead to inefficient use of road space, etc. Instead it was found that separate divisions of infantry and cavalry worked better, each with their own artillery.

Army corps as standing formations did not exist before Napoleon. Informal "battles" or wings led by generals were the order of the day. Napoleon created the corps as a collection of divisions, the standard one have 2-3 infantry divisions and 1 cavalry division (occasionally only a brigade). These were operationally self sufficient. Cavalry corps were much smaller formations meant to operate independently or suppliment whole wings in combat.

The Prussians used a slightly different structure in which the echelon above regiments was termed a brigade but was the size of a French division - by using command spans of 3 rather than 2, basically. (3x3x3 vs. 2x2x2x2). They made these already forces of all arms but with only limited cavalry.

All of the divisional size units were by now thought of consciously as copies of Roman legions. Ranks and reliefs in battle stemmed partly from the Spanish system developed for reloading early firearms, with some of Gustavus' refinement, but also on a larger scale from Roman multiple rank tactics. A typical division was deployed in two ranks of staggered battalions, with supporting arms and reverses on a third line. Birds eye, you could be looking at maniples of a Roman legion.

By the time of WW I, armies had expanded enourmously and necessary dispersion on the battlefield (to avoid HE above all) broke all the direct connections to ancient and medieval deployment practices. But the organizational forms already existed, and the new deployments and tactics were adapted to them rather than the other way around.

Battalions did reliefs on longer time scales but for the same reasons Romans used multiple lines. At first 2 up 2 back formations were typical within brigades. With triangular formations it was found 2 up 1 back was sufficient, as units spent longer in the line without needing relief. Of course the physical area was much larger as well. It grew still larger in WW II and still larger subsequently - the pressure from increasing firepower has been fully compensated by declining force to space.

At the time of WW II, the division was the basic unit of grand tactics. WW II combat was driven by combined arms considerations, meaning there are gobs of distinct arms and unit types, each good at particular things, having definite paper scissors rock relations among themselves and in interaction with terrain and mission, etc. Nothing could be accomplished by single unit types.

It was found that the power of armor was greatest when it was concentrated but supported by all other arms. This lead to the formation of two basic types of operational unit, armor heavy and armor deprived. The latter were necessary to concentrate the available armor. All units had a wide mix of unit types, armor ones just had a few more than the infantry types. The division was the level at which these integrations happened.

The fundamental determinant of the size of divisions in this era was the range of artillery and the forces required for that amount of space. Divisions were artillery pools, able to direct fires as a unit when required. Occasionally they might be deployed so widely only a portion of the guns could support each portion of the division - but that was a suboptimal thing and all concerned knew it.

Artillery coordinated with all units within range, that is the first combined arms integration the division had to bring about. Maneuver units shelter the artillery, HQs, and supply services, the artillery reaches far enough to support all maneuver units in the division. They then also need specialists like antitank defense, engineers for fortifications and transport infrastructure, supply services, etc.

This scale put rather more maneuver units under one commander than were needed as a single integrated tactical force. The usual practice was to create combat teams or KGs around the component regiments or brigades, working in a loosely articulated fashion. This gave the division a means of orientation, though a minimal one - side by side typically, sometimes one back, occasionally column. Each of these could then have a local relief or reserve element, in the form of a single battalion. Sometimes there would instead be only a single battalion in reserve for the whole division.

Division commanders fought their units by assigning a basic orientation and specific frontages to their major subunits, and by tasking the additional elements of the division to support A or B or remain in reserve etc. And by tasking their supporting artillery fires. In the case of armor heavy units, the critical piece of tasking was where to send the armor, whether to keep it together or form multiple teams with some, etc. Later in the war, even the infantry formations typically had some limited form of armor and again how to use it was a critical division level decision.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Krautman:

Does anyone know why some german NCOs were called Wachtmeister? I thought this was a police rank.

It's a cavalry rank, like a Rittmeister in the cavalry was a Hauptmann in other units.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

Picking up on the subject of the correct ortharised tables of establishment and equipment that has come up in this thread, I would like to know specifically the amount and therefore the ratio of HMGs that will be historically accurate for British and Commonwealth Divisions. I know that they had a Heavy (Vickers) MG Battalion (as I understand the British and Commonwealth named regiment systems) in each Division, but I don't know the numbers of HMGs nor mortors either. Can anybody with the correct information please enlighten me?

There was one divisional MG battalion per divison; three companies of Vickers guns and one company of 4.2 inch mortars.

Bouchery's British Soldier Vol. 2 gives a company as three platoons, each with 4 Vickers guns. A company of mortars was 4 platoons, each with 4 weapons.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Thanks Dorosh I was thinking it was something along those lines. 3 Coy x 3 Pltn x 4 HMGs makes a British and Commonwealth Division equal to the number of HMGs in a German Regiment! 36 HMGs for 9 Infantry Btlns (named Rgmts) as aposed to 108 HMGs for 9 Btlns all up. This is scewed further by the fact that the Brit and Commo Inf Btlns usually had 4 Coys of 3 Pltns, while the German Divns were 3 Rgmts x 3 Btlns x 3 Coys x 3 Pltns. Thus this essentially means that for the Brit and Commo Infantry the ratio is a case of 1 HMG per Inf Coy!

I had been assuming a higher ratio in my force compositions, say 48 (4 Coys x 3 Pltns x 4 HMGs) or 64 (4 Coys x 4 Pltns x 4 HMGs), not that I had any info except that each (H)MG Btln was likely to have 4 Coys.

I am now confused about the number of 3 inch mortors in these Divisions. Anyone know for sure and that the TO&E of MG Btlns stayed the same throughout the War and during the CMAK time period?