Help with UK unit designations

[Jean Lafitte]

Folks, the UK unit designations still confuse me sometimes. I'm talking about the ones that use the slash between two numbers, i.e. 7/7.

Could somebody clarify how to read these? I know that the UK forces used battalions, brigades, regiments and divisions. However, I often can't figure out what which number in the x/y designation refers to a battalion, regiment, brigade or division.

Thanks for the help.

[flamingknives]

At a rough guess, the first number would be the 'building block' unit and the second the parent unit.

To ensure we're all talking about the same think, I've added a footnote on the various nomenclature of the British Army in WWII

For Infantry, I'd guess that 7/7 would be 7th Battalion, 7th Regiment. As most regiments are named, this would be relatively rare

Footnote:

Unit in bold is the standard building block - i.e would be assigned to a larger formation.

Infantry;

Platoon, Company, Battalion Brigade etc.

Battalions come from Regiments, but are not deployed in regiments - these are administrative entities.

Armour;

Troop, Squadron, Regiment brigade etc.

Artillery

Troop, Battery, Regiment

Regiments of artillery are assigned directly to larger formations, such as Divisions, Corps etc.

[Michael Dorosh]

Actually,the slash usually indicated an amalgamated unit - 17/21 Lancers was an amalgamation of the 17th and 21st cavalry regiments, long before WW II for example.

In the Australian example, it meant the 2nd overseas force - the 1st AIF was in WW I, so the WW II units all had a 2/ added to the designation.

Artillery batteries in the Commonwealth were also paired in some instance, such as when a regiment went from a 4 battery organization to a 2 battery organization. Instead of renaming the batteries, they simply twinned them.

Ie if 23 Field Regiment had the following batteries

10th

12th

13th

18th

and decided to reorg as a 2 battery organization, they might call the new batteries

10/12 Battery

13/18 Battery

[flamingknives]

D'oh!

You know, when you've been UberGrogged

[Determinant]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

D'oh!

You know, when you've been UberGrogged

No, you're not UberGrogged. You're both UberGrogging together.

Michael is right about cavalry regiment amalgamations viz the 17/21st Lancers with their natty 'Death or Glory' Cap Badge. The 17/21st was of course a single regiment of armour (subsequently amalgamated again out of existence). Or a tank battalion in more prosaic Continental (pick either) terms. A single unit. There is thus no 16/21st etc.

And you are of course also right to say that the number in front of the slash designates the battalion number of a regiment of infantry. Thus the 2/Hampshires would be the 2nd Battalion of the Hampshire Regiment. I would not go quite as far to say that a regiment is merely 'administrative'. It is of course just that in combat terms but it is also one's family.

Life becomes slightly more complicated when you are dealing with infantry regiments that, post-Cardwell reforms, are still known by numbers (which is uncommon). John Masters' old mob the 2/4th Prince of Wales's Own Gurkha Rifles being a case in point. They were thus the 2nd Battalion of that Regiment implying that there could be other battalions of that Regiment in existence rather than merely being an amalgamation of the 2nd and 4th PWOGRs. D'you see?

The US is of course familiar with this with, for instance, the famous example of the 3/75 Rangers being the 3rd Battalion of the 75th Rangers Regiment. Phew.

[Jean Lafitte]

Originally posted by Determinant:

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

D'oh!

You know, when you've been UberGrogged

No, you're not UberGrogged. You're both UberGrogging together.

Michael is right about cavalry regiment amalgamations viz the 17/21st Lancers with their natty 'Death or Glory' Cap Badge. The 17/21st was of course a single regiment of armour (subsequently amalgamated again out of existence). Or a tank battalion in more prosaic Continental (pick either) terms. A single unit. There is thus no 16/21st etc.

And you are of course also right to say that the number in front of the slash designates the battalion number of a regiment of infantry. Thus the 2/Hampshires would be the 2nd Battalion of the Hampshire Regiment. I would not go quite as far to say that a regiment is merely 'administrative'. It is of course just that in combat terms but it is also one's family.

Life becomes slightly more complicated when you are dealing with infantry regiments that, post-Cardwell reforms, are still known by numbers (which is uncommon). John Masters' old mob the 2/4th Prince of Wales's Own Gurkha Rifles being a case in point. They were thus the 2nd Battalion of that Regiment implying that there could be other battalions of that Regiment in existence rather than merely being an amalgamation of the 2nd and 4th PWOGRs. D'you see?

The US is of course familiar with this with, for instance, the famous example of the 3/75 Rangers being the 3rd Battalion of the 75th Rangers Regiment. Phew. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Jean Lafitte:

Apparently a x/y designation denotes the battalion and the regiment to which it belongs

I suggest you reread this thread in its entirety, as at least two posters have already indicated that this is not correct.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Jean Lafitte:

I still struggle with UK designations.

Apparently a x/y designation denotes the battalion and the regiment to which it belongs, but this does not tell us the brigade to which it belongs.

I understand that the regiment is the "family" to which the battalion belongs. What's confusing is that each battalion in a single brigade may belong to a different regiment.

More help!

PS I'm pretty much a grognard in all other areas of WWII knowledge. This is my weak spot.

This confusion is perfectly understandable. It comes from the British practice of rotating complete units (ie infantry battalions or armour regiments) rather than leaving the units in place and trickle-posting personnel through them which, as I understand it is the preferred US model.

This means that there is mostly no connection between units and how they are brigaded together. Thus in Normandy you could find the 56th Inf Bde with 2 Essex; 2 South Wales Borderers; and 2 Gloucestershires. One wonders what they found to say to each other - but the Brigade sports meetings must have been keenly fought affairs!

Things become slightly more confusing at Divisional level. As a result of the WWI experience where Bdes were swopped fairly promiscuously between Divs there was an attempt to keep Bdes in the same Divs. And of course you have the regional Divs (51 Highland; 43 Wessex; 50 Northumberland etc) which I suppose reflected the territorial nature of many of the units found in those Divs (UK equivalent of US national guard) and was an attempt to give a bit of coherence to the Div as an entity.

The important thing to remember is that in the British Army the unit is very strong. Nobody is much concerned by Bdes and Divs. Men will remain with the same group for a long period of time. This is good for brush-fire wars and Imperial Policing: it generates high morale and a sense of belonging. The negative side to it though (and there is a negative side to everything) is that it is expensive to rotate whole units; and it also generates a certain insularity of mind. This is potentially corrosive of proper all arms warfare.

Now who is going to explain to me the alphabet soup of Regimental Combat Teams?

[Jean Lafitte]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jean Lafitte:

Apparently a x/y designation denotes the battalion and the regiment to which it belongs

I suggest you reread this thread in its entirety, as at least two posters have already indicated that this is not correct. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

As indicated above (I knew I had phrased it poorly, my apologies), Australian units had a "2/" prefix to indicate this was the second Australian Imperial Force - the first A.I.F. had served in the 1914-18 War.

Since Australian forces were organized solely for home defence, the A.I.F. was the overseas force much like Canada's CEF in World War One. New, numbered, units were created and sent overseas rather than existing regiments.

I imagine it was important to distinguish between home service units and the A.I.F. because when conscription was introduced, it was for the home defence units only.

Thus

2/48

Is the 48th Battalion, part of the 2nd A.I.F.

2/17 is the 17th Battalion, part of the 2nd A.I.F.

The A.I.F. was an administrative entity, not a combat formation such as a regiment or brigade.

At El Alamein, 9 Australian Div had

20 Australian Infantry Brigade, with 2/13, 2/15 and 2/17 Battalions

24 Australian Infantry Brigade, with 2/28, 2/32 and 2/43 Battalions

26 Australian Infantry Brigade, with 2/23, 2/24 and 2/48 Battalions

You can see then that the 2/ designation was not a tactical description and was applied to ALL Australian battalions regardless of regiment or division. You could probably leave the 2/ out entirely as it is essentially meaningless. For the sake of correctness, it is included as it made up part of the "official" title.

[ December 28, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Jean Lafitte]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As indicated above (I knew I had phrased it poorly, my apologies), Australian units had a "2/" prefix to indicate this was the second Australian Imperial Force - the first A.I.F. had served in the 1914-18 War.

Since Australian forces were organized solely for home defence, the A.I.F. was the overseas force much like Canada's CEF in World War One. New, numbered, units were created and sent overseas rather than existing regiments.

I imagine it was important to distinguish between home service units and the A.I.F. because when conscription was introduced, it was for the home defence units only.

Thus

2/48

Is the 48th Battalion, part of the 2nd A.I.F.

2/17 is the 17th Battalion, part of the 2nd A.I.F.

The A.I.F. was an administrative entity, not a combat formation such as a regiment or brigade.

At El Alamein, 9 Australian Div had

20 Australian Infantry Brigade, with 2/13, 2/15 and 2/17 Battalions

24 Australian Infantry Brigade, with 2/28, 2/32 and 2/43 Battalions

26 Australian Infantry Brigade, with 2/23, 2/24 and 2/48 Battalions

You can see then that the 2/ designation was not a tactical description and was applied to ALL Australian battalions regardless of regiment or division. You could probably leave the 2/ out entirely as it is essentially meaningless. For the sake of correctness, it is included as it made up part of the "official" title.

THANK YOU! I've been ignorant for years, now you've cured me with regard to the Australians!

Please, somebody cure me with regard to the other UK forces. Or perhaps does the thread already contain all that there is to know? In which case, I'll have to accept that one cannot tell simply from the x/y designation, all that there is to know about the designated unit.

[Michael Dorosh]

If you give a specific example, it would help, but there was no official way of designating a unit's brigade, division, corps, etc. as part of its title.

For example - 5/7 Gordon Highlanders.

This was an amalgamation of the 5th and 7th battalions of that regiment. At El Alamein, they served with the 153rd Infantry Brigade, which itself belonged to the 51st Highland Division, which was part of XXX Corps, which belonged to the 8th Army.

The 5/7 designation thus gave no indication as to the brigade, division, corps or army.

152nd Brigade (also of 51 Highland Division) contained three battlions

2nd Battalion, Seaforth Highlanders

5th Battalion, Seaforth Highlanders

5th Battalion, Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders

There was no rhyme or reason to the assignment of battalions. 154 brigade had both the 1st and the 7th battalions of the Black Watch.

To continue the example above, 153 Brigade had

5th Battalion, The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)

1st Battalion, The Gordon Highlanders

5/7 Battalion, The Gordon Highlanders

Note that the 5/7 indicates one battalion (made up from two previously seperate battalions).

I can't speak for the Indian Division - I see their 5th Brigade included 1/4 Essex Regiment, 4/6 Rajputana Rifles, and 3/10 Baluch...I will stop before I confuse myself....)

[Jean Lafitte]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

If you give a specific example, it would help, but there was no official way of designating a unit's brigade, division, corps, etc. as part of its title.

For example - 5/7 Gordon Highlanders.

This was an amalgamation of the 5th and 7th battalions of that regiment. At El Alamein, they served with the 153rd Infantry Brigade, which itself belonged to the 51st Highland Division, which was part of XXX Corps, which belonged to the 8th Army.

The 5/7 designation thus gave no indication as to the brigade, division, corps or army.

152nd Brigade (also of 51 Highland Division) contained three battlions

2nd Battalion, Seaforth Highlanders

5th Battalion, Seaforth Highlanders

5th Battalion, Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders

There was no rhyme or reason to the assignment of battalions. 154 brigade had both the 1st and the 7th battalions of the Black Watch.

To continue the example above, 153 Brigade had

5th Battalion, The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)

1st Battalion, The Gordon Highlanders

5/7 Battalion, The Gordon Highlanders

Note that the 5/7 indicates one battalion (made up from two previously seperate battalions).

I can't speak for the Indian Division - I see their 5th Brigade included 1/4 Essex Regiment, 4/6 Rajputana Rifles, and 3/10 Baluch...I will stop before I confuse myself....)

Thanks a million! I've learned much today. I fully understand why I've been confused for so long . . . this business can be very confusing!

In any event, I am much more informed now than I was yesterday. Thanks so much.

Anybody else got some good examples of UK unit designations?

[Darknight (DC)]

The British 'regiment' is an administrative entity only....the various battalions of the same parent regiment seldom fought together in the same brigade or division, although it did occur from time to time (the 51st and 53rd Divisions come to mind as examples of this exception). Various battalions were raised by their parent regiment and then added to whichever brigade or division the higher administrative authority deemed (I have no idea if they had any system for which battalion went into which brigade/division).

Every battalion raised by the regiment was numbered (eg. 2nd Bn, Scots Guards; or 5th Bn, Sherwood Foresters).

Now for the major confusion....the INFANTRY battalions with split designations, such as the 1/5th Bn, West Surrey Regt and 2/5th Bn, West Surrey Regt. Prior to the war, this would have been a territorial battalion, the 5th Bn, West Surrey Regt. The Territorial Army was expanded by splitting this battlion (and many others) and redesignating it as above. So this would mean that the 5/7th Bn, Gordon Highlanders were originally the 7th Bn, Gordon Highlanders (which was a part of the Territorial Army prior to the war and which was split into several other battlions).

The CAVALRY regiments are precisely as indicated in the above posts....they were amalgamated regiments (eg. 17th/21st Lancers; 4th/8th Hussars).

The Royal Tank Regiment numbered it's sub-units as battalions (and many RTR battalions were converted from territorial infantry battalions).

It can be confusing but it starts to make some sense when it's all explained.

[Jean Lafitte]

Please tell me that there is a website that discusses this stuff!

I haven't felt so clueless about a military history topic since I first became interested in this stuff back in 1973.

[Darknight (DC)]

I'm not sure of any specific website that would talk about this....(maybe regiments.org?)

I have been studying the Commonwealth troops and the British regimental system very closely for the past 3-4 years and accumulated a lot of what I've learned from books (I put a real strain on my local library's national inter-library loan system....it must have cost them a fortune in postage ).

[ December 29, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Darknight_Canuck ]