Newbie needs help with army structure

[Pishky]

I would be grateful if someone could point me in the direction which would help me to understand the structure of an army.

I understand the concept of a squad, platoon and company but get lost on the concept of regiment, batallion, division etc.

Do the brits and yankies use the same terms?

Any help would be greately appreciated

[JonS]

in answer to your specific question: sometimes.

in answer to the general question: http://www.100thww2.org/100org/100org.html. This is the organisation of a standard US Army infantry division near the ned of the war. You can click on the unis to dive down into ever greater detail.

[Holman]

In reeeeally brief form:

3 rifle squads in a platoon

3 rifle platoons (+1 heavy weaps platoon) in a company

3 rifle companies (+1 HW company)in a battalion

3 battalions in a regiment

3 regiments (+ various support elements) in a division

2 or more divisions in a corps

2 or more corps in an army

2 or more armies in an army group

just a handful of army groups in Europe

There are support elements stuck in at every level, and I'm sure someone will be along to explain those.

A brigade exists at the same level as a regiment, but contains more support elements and more of a combined-arms structure (infantry and armor battalions side by side, for instance). Most US divisions use regiments, while UK divisions use brigades.

[llama]

The British organisation was similar overall but there is sometimes confusion over the term regiment when people, particularly our American cousins, are talking dealing with British forces.

The typical British regiment had many battalions (not just three) and tended to recruit from a particular area – though this was somewhat watered down later in the war when replacements were drafted in. For example the Gordon Highlanders took, and still take, most of their recruits from Glasgow, which of course is a lowland city and not in the Highlands of Scotland at all. However, it was very rare for two battalions of the same regiment to fight together. Instead battalions from different regiments (usually 3 of them) were brigaded together under a Brigadier.

Some additional confusion is sometimes caused by one or two formations. The Royal Regiment of Artillery is not actually a regiment it’s a Corps which is made up of numerous artillery regiments; including the Kings Troop Royal Horse Artillery, which is a Regiment and not a troop. The Royal Tank Regiment was also a corps made up of many regiments. However, artillery regiments and tank regiments do not have battalions.

The old King Royal Rifle Corps (part of which started off life as an American unit) was not a corps but a regiment.

Hope this helps

[Philippe]

And it gets even more confusing when you begin to suspect that British regiments were not military formations as much as social organizations. With a lot more longevity and permanence than the higher units they were attached to. Affiliation and unit loyalty was usually to the regiment which was a bit like a collegiate alma mater or a club. And disruptive things like wars tended to be very messy and cause a lot of unpleasantness, particularly when there would be a sudden influx of wartime recruits, some of whom had the bad taste (and poor breeding) to think that soldiering was the most important part of military life. The Guards fought like lions and dined like lords, and took their regimental silver to Normandy for their field mess. Hopefully it wasn't their best set.

[llama]

Phillipe,

You are quite right about British Regiments longevity. Quite a few regiments have been around since the late 1600's, and the Grenadier Guards since 1658 (the Royal Scots - nickname Pontious Pilate's Bodyguard - have been in existance since 1633, but one doesn't like to mention them in polite society).

You mentioned the Guards. Please don't lump them altogether as there is a distinct difference between the Grenadiers and the lesser types, then there are the horse guards.

Cheers

[Pishky]

Great stuff guys.

It is like if a lamp was turned on in a dark room. Your time and effort is much appreciated.

Regards

Peter

[JonS]

Originally posted by Martyr:

3 rifle companies (+1 HW company)in a battalion

4 rifle companys plus a spt company in a CW bn. Except when there wasn't*

Regards

JonS

* Examples of when there wasn't:

1) Para (but not Airlanding) bns.

2) British (but not CW) bns in Italy from mid-late '44 onwards.

[Holman]

The thing to remember is that Great Britain has no respect for mathematics. They will add four companies to a battalion and three battalions to a regiment without regard for logic, necessity, or sense.

And not only will they give each battalion its own name, but they will do things with fractions that would give Euclid or Steven Hawking fits! e.g. "2/17 North Hobbiton Slingshotters" or "11/13 Yorkshire Languishers."

Don't even try to understand it. Just know that Monty wanted the glory without the casualties.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

3 rifle companies (+1 HW company)in a battalion

4 rifle companys plus a spt company in a CW bn. Except when there wasn't*

Regards

JonS

* Examples of when there wasn't:

1) Para (but not Airlanding) bns.

2) British (but not CW) bns in Italy from mid-late '44 onwards. </font>

[Askovdk]

If you download the demo for 'TacOps v4' here at Battlefront you will in the 'Guide-user' at page 176ff find some very nice (and modern) tables of organization.

They helped me understand a lot about the structures and support companies.

TacOps is in itself a quite interesting game.

[Splinty]

Just to add to the confusion in the U.S. Army artillery companies are called batteries, scout (recce) companies are called troops and scout battalions are called squadrons.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Just to add to the confusion in the U.S. Army artillery companies are called batteries, scout (recce) companies are called troops and scout battalions are called squadrons.

That finally occurred to me last week as I started reading Shelby Stanton's book on Ground Forces in Vietnam. I thought it was a misprint at first - a company of CW cavalry is a Squadron but for some reason it is a battalion in the US. Very odd.