Slang Question

[Andreas]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

You are hugely, colossally and perfectly right, and I am more egregeously in error than a man who believes that Ivor Novello is still alive.

Plus ca change.

Now email me your telephone number or call me.

[Michael Dorosh]

The Staffordshire and Highland Divisions stand shamefaced at Andreas' obvious insult.

[Andreas]

Why? Because I missed them off the list? Have you ever been to Staffordshire? It is not worth mentioning.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:

I've seen for the Pzkw IV A-D either 'stump' or 'stubbie' something like that.

I think that was a nickname for the main gun, rather than the tank itself. </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by With Clusters:

OK, I know squat. How were these myriads of units organized into larger elements (divisions, especially)? On a sort of ad-hoc basis? This seems a sort of bottom up organization, as opposed to top down (as done by other countries? - yeah, not a grog at all, but very much interested in the history).

Once you get above brigade level, the British Army calms down a bit and starts behaving rather more like other armies. You can safely treat a British brigade as equivalent to a regiment in other armies for most organisational purposes.

The difference is not so much one of "bottom-up" versus "top-down" -- although that's not an unhelpful idea, as IIRC Wavell stressed the need to train the small elements first and build up from there -- as that the British Army really lacks (from the point of view of fighting organisation) a regimental level. Brigades are not such permanent establishments, although during the course of the war the composition of brigades did not change with great frequency. Divisions and up have always been thought of as very large currency in British military thought during peace time; with most of the treasury's funds being spent on the Navy, and deployments sometimes of single battalions not unreasonable for roles such as colonial policing, one can see why the focus of cohesion was pitched at a lower level than in continental armies designed only to fight full-scale wars against first-class enemies.

As I think we've discussed before, typical British division organisations late in WW2 were three brigades each of three battalions for an infantry division, and a lorried infantry brigade of three battalions plus an armoured brigade of three armoured regiments and a motor battalion (infantry in half-tracks) in an armoured division. The infantry brigade would have 3 regiments of field arty, and an MG battalion and a recce regiment (from the Reconnaissance Corps). An armoured division would have an armoured recce regiment (driving Cromwells in NWE), one SP and one towed field artillery regiment. Both kinds of division would have divisional signals and engineers, and a regiment each of LAA and anti-tank artillery. It all makes some kind of sense; however, in the tradition of doing things on a smaller scale than other armies, the British used a considerable number of independent armoured, tank, infantry and special service (commando) brigades, which had no divisional affiliation.

All the best,

John.

[With Clusters]

Just like everywhere else. You take three battalions and a brigade staff, and hey presto, you have a brigade. Take three of those, throw in some RA, REME, RASC, Recce Corps, etc. pp, and a divisional staff, and you have a division.

Most divisions were based on regions, e.g. the 43rd on Wessex (ye olde English kingdom), 49th on the West Riding, 50th on Northumbria, 52nd on the lowlands, 53rd on Wales, etc. But this was not always adhered to, so you could find any sort of funny combination in the 78th Division (e.g. 36th Brigade with two south coast battalions, 5th Royal East Kents, and 6th Queens, and then a Scottish battalion 8th Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders).

So it was more or less ad-hoc, at least for Commonwealth divisions (w/ some regional conglomerations occasionally?)? So where did unit 'esprit-de-corps' (for lack of a better word) lie? Not within the division, I assume (compared to US divisions, as far as I know [again, not a grog or a vet, just what I know from school and the History Channel ], such as "I was in the 82nd Airborne", or "the Big Red One", etc.?)? Would regiments/brigades be swapped frequently between divisions or larger formations, w/o much concern? Very interesting to know for a quasi-historian (wrong period though, studied 'ancient' in Uni and MA). Thanks! And sorry if this detracts from finding out the nickname of the Panzer II!

[Michael Dorosh]

That is correct - brigades in the Canadian Army were the same as the British - battalions were assembled from wherever.

They tried to do things regionally with the Canadians, but after successfully organizing the First Division into regional brigades (1st from Ontario, 2nd from the West, 3rd from the Maritimes and Quebec), things got rocky in the Second Division.

And all these battalions were brought up to believe they were better than everyone else, so pride was definitely on a "regimental" level, not in the brigade or division.

Things were probably much more close knit even within individual companies. Look at Band of Brothers; they all identified with Company E rather than the 506th PIR or 101 Abn Div. It was probably the same in the CW units too, they just weren't as honest about it as Dick Winters and crew.

Pride and tradition are where you find them, and if you can't find them - you make them!

[GAGA Extrem]

I am not really sure, but i think the tanks were propably called like they are named in CMAK:

Tiger,

StuH

etc.

HT were maybe called by their sdkfz numbers... ("Zwo-fuenf-null-zwoer" / "250/2er")

I am only sure at the nicks for the 20mm Quadflak: "Vierling" ("Quad"), the 88mm AA: "88" / "Acht-achter" and the dual 20mm AA: "Zwilling" ("Twin")

About names in their squad, i believe that they sayed: "Panzer 10" or just the tank commander names...

Maybe something more comes into my mind tomorrow...

[edit]

removed "ü" and added "ue" for english readers ^^;;

[/edit]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by With Clusters:

So where did unit 'esprit-de-corps' (for lack of a better word) lie? Not within the division, I assume?

I think there was certainly some Esprit de Corps in the divisions, especially if they had a strong commander. Primarily it would lie in the Regiment though. Needs must however, and so drafts of men from training battalions could well find themselves in the 'wrong' regiment very quickly. E.g. a group of Welshmen who ended up with the AS&H in Tunisia, and quickly regretted their choice, when they got their first Scots breakfast.

Originally posted by With Clusters:

Would brigades be swapped frequently between divisions or larger formations, w/o much concern?

I have come across one case (apart from complete reorgs, e.g. when the funny divisions with two infantry brigades and one tank brigade lost the latter to receive a third infantry brigade), and that was 78th 'Battleaxe' Division (note that this one did not have an explicit regional affiliation in the name), where the Guards Brigade was exchanged for the (an?) Irish Brigade shortly after Sicily, IIRC. There were some rumours that the Guards Brigadier and the GOC could not get along well. Otherwise, Brigades would mostly stay with their divisions.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Please do not sue me.

Wouldn't dream of suing you, old chap. May have to strike you from the Christmas card list this year though. We'll see.

Michael

[Holman]

At the risk of veering into General Discussion territory, would someone be so kind as to compare the British Brigade structure we're discussing with the structure of the present-day US Army?

Back in WW2 a US Army Infantry Division was organized as three regiments of three infantry battalions, plus attached etc., so you have (for instance) the 30th ID comprised of the 117, 119, and 120 Infantry regiments. Nowadays, however, that regimental structure seems to be gone, and the US Army speaks of brigades and divisions but not regiments.

What happened to those regiments? Did they just disappear and that's that, or do they have some ghostly afterlife in a division's (or brigade's?) institutional structure? Did regiments just *become* brigades?

I know that the war-swollen WW2 armed forces were greatly shrunk in later decades, but I wonder if the proud histories of certain regiments (some of which go back to the Civil War and earlier) have become attached to units that persist today, or if they have just been filed away.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Which was indeed what was intended. The names given to many late war tanks and weapon systems (Panzerfaust, -schreck or -todt for example) were officially referred to as "Suggestivnamen", suggestive names that is. As you point out, they were intended to make a positive / moral boosting / intimidating impression, depending on who the receiver was.

Oh, and yes, in Germany "everything" was and is abbreviated...

M.

[Dandelion]

This is all very interesting.

Though much younger (the oldest Regiments being from 1701 I think), the German regiments actually had the same system of naming as the UK. Little known maybe, as it is rather invisible in WWII.

But there was since 1871 a German "Stamm" or regular army, into which the Regiments of the various German states was incorporated, and so it consisted of a number of regiments similar to that of the UK as John displays here, all with named and numbered regiments. The names were, as with the British, normally geographical. But not always. Traces of older fiefdoms and baronies were to be found, as well as some bizarre historical names.

The German regiment, unlike the British then, was both a peacetime and wartime organisation. Worked as follows. In peacetime, the Regiment consisted of two battallions, one of which was a the training organisation consisting of a cadre of officers and NCOs, plus the conscripts being trained (normally organised in 10-12 companies). The other battallion was an administrative unit, very small, say caretakers of the wartime equipment and facilities, as well as planning. In war, the regiment mobilised into a full combat organisation. In each wave of mobilisation (Welle), the regiment multiplied itself by division, splitting into two (in some cases three) cadres, the cadres then filled out to full size by new conscripts. Well, that's the general system in short, and thus the Regiment produced Regiments, not battallions, for service.

When the army was restricted in size after the Great War, the "Stamm" (regular) regiments were reduced to battalions, or simply disappeared, their traditions carried by other units. Thus a single Reichswehr Regiment could (and would normally) carry the traditions of up to three Stamm Regiments. Now that makes for cumbersome names. With the mobilisation of Welle 1, the Regiments were again back to Stamm numbers, and each Regiment carried the traditions of such a Stamm unit. Thus, in their full extent, German Regiment names also had a suffix, just like the UK counterparts.

So for example the IR 1 was by full name actually called I.R.1 (IR 373 (Königsberg)), IR 85 had the suffix (Bayrische IR.16 (Passau)), Pz.Rgt.12 had (Kür.Rgt.8) [that's 8th cuirassiers], Gebirgsjäger-Rgt.98 had (Tiroler Kaiserjäger), IR 60 from Hamburg had (Schutztruppe-Deutsch-Ost-Afrika) and so on. Not to mention the Hanoveranian IR 73 (Füs.Rgt.73 (Hannover)) which might be familiar as it carried the same name in British service.

As per decision in spring of 1939, traditions would rest for the duration of the war. That meant not only stopping of ceremonies etc, it also meant dropping of names, titles and suffixes of historical, non-functional nature.

Battallions had no separate names (after Welle 1), with some exceptions. Nor did they really have any separate identity, just a Latin numeral. The normal basic unit of any German (Heer) soldier was the company or the Regiment. And in abstract sense, the Division, which like most UK counterparts were regional and sometimes equipped with unofficial suffixes of that region.

No I am not going to write the full list of Stamm Regiments with their full names. That would take me all night. I am guessing John and Michael must have had prepared lists that they used, and I don't have any such.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[gautrek]

Arn't the Royal Green jackets called that because the unit started out as a sharp shooter unit which used green jackets for the camoflage.

So that one makes prefect sense.

But i can't understand why we a gun called "POOH".

I mean how sad is that.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

This is all very interesting.

Though much younger (the oldest Regiments being from 1701 I think), the German regiments actually had the same system of naming as the UK.

Not that much younger - I think the oldest British regiments may go back to the Civil War. So that is only about 50 years difference.

Well, Regiments.org names a few that are older, but it seems the real wave is in the 1650s, and anything before then is a bit of an oddity. I am sure those Germans from 1701 had someone in their past too.

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Not that much younger - I think the oldest British regiments may go back to the Civil War. So that is only about 50 years difference.

Hey I found an artillery regiment in the roll from 1620. It's the Feld-Artillerie-Rgt.12, in 1939 called A.R.4, Dresden boys. And I found older infantry unit too, than 1701 I mean, the oldest here on the first roll would be the Grenadier-Rgt.4, raised in 1626, in 1939 called I.R.2., Allenstein boys. I bet I'll find older ones too if I read all of this. Tiresome to read, gothic lettering.

1626. Christ, we're talking 30 year war here. I really had no idea, haven't checked these date of raising before.

These regiments are as old as the UK ones. There goes another myth out the window.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Michael Dorosh]

I dimly recall reading of a German regiment that had Gibralter as a Battle Honour, and of course said regiment faced the British in the trenches in the Great War, some of whom also had the Gibralter honour....

[c3k]

This is wholly entertaining!! You gentlemen have probably forgotten more than I'll ever know about these matters. Thanks to John Salt, et al., for the previous discussions.

Ken (who's _still_ confused about British nomenclature.)

[Wubbits]

John has done a wonderful job at explaining the Brit system. While he is in such fine form he could prob explain how cricket works to the Yanks!!

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

This is all very interesting.

Though much younger (the oldest Regiments being from 1701 I think), the German regiments actually had the same system of naming as the UK.

Not that much younger - I think the oldest British regiments may go back to the Civil War. So that is only about 50 years difference.

Well, Regiments.org names a few that are older, but it seems the real wave is in the 1650s, and anything before then is a bit of an oddity. I am sure those Germans from 1701 had someone in their past too. </font>

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Martyr:

At the risk of veering into General Discussion territory, would someone be so kind as to compare the British Brigade structure we're discussing with the structure of the present-day US Army?

Back in WW2 a US Army Infantry Division was organized as three regiments of three infantry battalions, plus attached etc., so you have (for instance) the 30th ID comprised of the 117, 119, and 120 Infantry regiments. Nowadays, however, that regimental structure seems to be gone, and the US Army speaks of brigades and divisions but not regiments.

What happened to those regiments? Did they just disappear and that's that, or do they have some ghostly afterlife in a division's (or brigade's?) institutional structure? Did regiments just *become* brigades?

I know that the war-swollen WW2 armed forces were greatly shrunk in later decades, but I wonder if the proud histories of certain regiments (some of which go back to the Civil War and earlier) have become attached to units that persist today, or if they have just been filed away.

In short...No, The US Army still has Rgts. The Brigade concept came back around the late 90s when Bubba butchered...errr..I mean "reorganized" the US Military because thier was no more "Soviet" threat. He must have forgot about Koreas 8 Corps of which are mechanized and no one really knows exactly how big they are. What had happened was "old" divisions were disbanded completely or they became ARNG Divisions. Forinstance the 2nd Arm Div became the 4th ID(Mech),[bubba take credit for making the 4th ID the most "tech advanced" unit in the Army and the World, the fact is that they already were when they were the 2 ArmD]. The 24 ID became the 3 ID and the "original" 3ID became the 1 ID. Weew, complicated ain't it. This is were it gets really complex. In the divisions there are three Mech Brigades, 1 aviation bde, DIVARTY, they are the principle fighting force ("a new lighter army") and the brigades do have "rgts" in them but they are not major commands except in the case of the 82nd AB and 101 AirAssault. With all the reorganization at the end of major conflicts and the scaling back many of the Rgts were chopped up and what was left was organized into these Brigades. The Army even has Seperate Brigades that are not attached to any Divisions but are shifted to Divisions to enhance combat power. The US Army has 9 Active divisions, 10 National Guard Divisions, 13 Reserve Divisions, 6 Seperate Bde, 15 Enhanced Seperate Bde, and 6 Stryker Bdes. There are are more units but thats the bulk of it.

NOW, unlike the US Army the USMC has not changed much since 1941. We have 3 Active Divisions, 1 Reserve Division, 3 Active Air Wings and 1 Reserve Air Wing, 2 Amphibious Bde (MEB), and there are also 4 FSSG, which are Division Strength but are Service and Support Groups. 3 Active, 1 Reserve. We also fight as a Battalion (Bn Landing Team)(MEUs), Regiment (Rgt Combat Team) or MEF (Marine expeditionary force). The Divisional Make up is 3 Rifle Rgts and 1 Arty. Each Division has 1 Tank Bn except the 4th Marine Division(reserve) they have 2, 4th and 8th Tank Battalions. We keep it simple...the 1st MarDiv has the 1,5,& 7 Rgts(rifle), and 11th (Arty, 155towed, USMC has no SP)They also have absorbed 3/4 (3rd Battalion, 4th Marines) from the 3 Mar Div. The 1st Mar Div full name is the 1st Marine Division(+) reinforced. The 1MarDiv makes up the main body of I MEF. The 2nd MarDiv is made up of the 2, 6, and 8 Marine Rgts(rifle) and the 10th Rgt (Arty, again all 155mm towed, no SP and nothing smaller, we do have about 400 105mm in storage but don't use them.)The 2 Mar Div is the main body of the II MEF. The 3rd MarDiv is really only a Bde if you ask me. They only have the 3rd Marine Rgt, Elements of the 4th and the 12th Marine Rgt (arty). The 9th Marines used to exist but they lost thier colors in Vietnam I think and the Rgt was not allowed to ever come back to US soil. It was based on Okinawa were they were disbanded. The Division was hammered by the downsizing of the Military. The Last Divison is the 4th. They have the 23, 24, and 25 Marine Rgts, and the 14th is an Arty Rgt. And they also have 2 tank bns, the 4th and the 8th. Each Division has 1 tank bn(exception)1 Light Arm Recon Bn, 1 Engineer Bn, 1 Assault Amphibian Bn, and 1 Recon Bn,,(I hope I got everyone)If the USMC needs to deploy in size they take the Division whos AO is within the hot zone and they become the lead MEF and units from other Divisions are attached. (i.e., During OIF, Iraq is in I MEFs AO so that means the 1st Marine Division deploys and the 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions attached units to I MEF. We have been doing this concept for years and years. The Army and USAF has been catching on but they think the created the Expetionary Force and Composite Air Wing concepts ,,to much pride to admit that they took the idea from the USMC. When a MEF conducts operations they make what is called Regimental Combat Teams (RCT) all it is ,is a Marine Rifle Rgt that has elements of arty, eng, and armor attached to it. The RCT carries the Rifle Rgts Number, ie RCT-5 is the combat team made up around the 5th Marine Rgt. I hope I have shed light on your question,,,I won't go into the Air Wings because they are a bit complicated, unless you want me too

[SgtDuke6216]

Originally posted by Martyr:

I know that the war-swollen WW2 armed forces were greatly shrunk in later decades, but I wonder if the proud histories of certain regiments (some of which go back to the Civil War and earlier) have become attached to units that persist today, or if they have just been filed away. [/QB]

There are still units from the civil and even revolutionary war. In the 42nd ID there is the 1Bn/69th Infantry,,thier roots go back to the revolution and they also made up the Irish Bde in the Civil War. They are from NY and are still based in NYC. Irish Imirgrants came off the ships in NY Harbor and were immediatley drafted in to the Army and sent south...most never returned. But they did fight with valor at Gettysburg. Also in the 42 ID is the 113 Rgt, which traces it origins all the way back to the French and Indian Wars. They were the Milita of Northern New Jersey then became the 1st Eastern Battalion in the Revolution. They then became the New Jersey Rgt in the Civil War and finally in WW1 they were designated the 113th Rgt. Again in the 42ID there is the 112th Arty Rgt which during the revolution was the Eastern and Western Cannon Companies. The 182nd Rgt traces it lineage back to 1636 when it was named the Northern Regiment then it became the Middlesex Rgt a few years later. Massachusets that is and not in jolly ole England. They too ended up fighting the English in the Revolution but the were redesignated Gardner's Rgt under the Massachusets Army. I belive they actually became a the 3rd Division, Massachusted Militia. Most of the ARNG and Reserve units on the Northeast coast have old lineage and most were levied by the British during the occupation..errr, colonial times...some even fought each other in the Civil War. The 1st Bde of the 29th ID was formed as a Rgt of Milita in Virgina during the Revolution. Then they went on to become the 1st Virginia Bde, Army of Shenandoah in the Civil War. I believe this Bde and the 69th fought against each other during the Civil War. So there are still some unit that trace thier linege back to occupational....errr..colonial times. I believe thier Rgts colors even still have the battle streamers. I know the College I went to in the south has 8 campaign stremers for combat actions in the confederate army....so there still is "Ancient History" within the US Military, but on a sad note the USMC has no unit that can try its origins back to "ages ago" except for maybe "8th and I" in Washington DC, but they are for ceremony only but are still considered light infantry. Our roots are 2 battalions of Marines that were raised in Philidelphia, PA on Nov 10, 1775 by Capt Samuel Nichols.(the birthday is still celebrated today with vigor!) The Marines were disbanded at the end of the Revolution They were reformed in about 1798. But all of those units were Battalion size and ships company. We really didn't get our current system until about 1913.

[ May 24, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: SgtDuke6216 ]

[Siege]

42nd Infantry Division? Man, it's odd to see my unit mentioned anywhere. But I can't claim to have been part of any historical portion of it. The 42nd Aviation Brigade just goes down in size the further back you go. Didn't even exist until the 1960's, and even then was just a company. Long way from piper cubs to Apache's, Chinooks, Huey's and Blackhawks.

But I don't miss it, glad to be a civilian again.

Oh, and the majority of the Fighting 69th is from out on Long Island and not Manhattan. My wifes family lives about 2 blocks from one of the company armories, and another is in Queens. I believe only the headquarters, one company, and some support elements are in Manhattan... but the entire division is all jumbled up right now between reorganization from Mech Infantry into a Homeland Defense quick reaction unit and a lot of it being deployment overseas in pieces, so depending on the actual date I might be mistaken.

-Hans

[ May 24, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

[jrrich0000]

Why don't you start another thread about UK/Canadian unit organization and history and stop hijacking this one?

I am curious about German nicknames for their equipment, but I don't want to have to wade through all the uninteresting (to me) off topic minutia and hair splitting to read about it!

[Dandelion]

Originally posted by jrrich0000:

Why don't you start another thread about UK/Canadian unit organization and history and stop hijacking this one?

I am curious about German nicknames for their equipment, but I don't want to have to wade through all the uninteresting (to me) off topic minutia and hair splitting to read about it!

The thread topic was, I belive, derogatory terms for Frenchmen. I think we exhausted that one rather rapidly.

It was in fact Martyr who hijacked the thread by bringing up German nicknames, and then again by bringing up regimental structures. In fact, he has been the engine of one of the most interesting threads in months in my humble opinion.

So you see the thread is a bit of a better box of chocolates, there's a little juicy something for everyone's taste

Cheerup

Dandelion