U.S. and British Infantry Divisions

[coe]

By 1944 were U.S. and British Infantry divisions mostly motorized? It seems like each usually also had a tank battalion or some form of tank destroyer unit attached in numbers greater than lets say a PanzerJager unit attached to a german infantry division - so in effect were all the British and U.S. infantry divisions Panzergrenadier divisions so to speak (thus ignoring manpower matching a German Infantry unit against its Western equivalent would be nott truely an even match?).

Conan

[stoat]

US infantry divisions were fully motorized from the start of the war. US infantry divisions would likely have an independent tank battalion attatched to them temporarily, and would have towed TDs to counter enemy armor.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by coe:

so in effect were all the British and U.S. infantry divisions Panzergrenadier divisions so to speak

One notable difference being that German Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions had at least one HT-equipped battalion in its TO&E. US and CW infantry divisions were for the most part truck-mounted.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

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

so in effect were all the British and U.S. infantry divisions Panzergrenadier divisions so to speak

One notable difference being that German Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions had at least one HT-equipped battalion in its TO&E. US and CW infantry divisions were for the most part truck-mounted. </font>

[stoat]

This post made to show that I am the master of the forum software, and not the other way around.

[Kingfish]

One allied infantry divisions which was even stronger than the German Pz and PzGr formations was the 2nd New Zealand divisions. Two complete infantry brigades, a 3-battalion armored brigade, motor battalion and assorted Arty, AT and Engineer assets put it in the same league as the SS-units, but without the organic Werfer attachments.

[JonS]

KF, at the end of the war it had three complete inf bdes, the armd bde (though now without a motor bn), plus ancillary units (engrs, arty, a-tk). However, it had no LAA regt, and the MMG bn had been broken up, with each inf bn now having an organic MMG pn. The 4.2-in mortars were in the A-Tk regt. Oh, the recce regt was gone too. And the armd regts were on a lower estab than a standard UK armd regt.

On topic: US and UK inf bns were foot borne throughout the war (mild exception during the desert noted). All spt weapons (MMGs, mtrs, A-Tk guns, etc) had dedicated tpt, and there were misc vehicles for Bn HQ, as well as coy and pn HQs (and in the UK case the bn had a carrier pn of 13 carriers. But the grunts walked.

In order to motorise them, trucks had to be allocated from Corps or Army resources. In the case of the British, this would be done by allocating RASC general transport companies. One coy provided sufficient lift for an inf bde. Three sections in a coy, 30 trucks in a section (as far as I can tell).

Linky poo to OH of two NZ tpt coys.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

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

so in effect were all the British and U.S. infantry divisions Panzergrenadier divisions so to speak

One notable difference being that German Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions had at least one HT-equipped battalion in its TO&E. US and CW infantry divisions were for the most part truck-mounted. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Let me ask a question about the UK divisions. Wasn't the plan that they be fully motorized, i.e. that each section of grunts have their own permanently assigned truck, but that it didn't work out that way because once they returned to the Continent, it was discovered that so many of their trucks proved to be mechanically faulty? Or is that a false impression on my part?

Michael

[JonS]

False impression. More later.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Wasn't the plan that they be fully motorized, i.e. that each section of grunts have their own permanently assigned truck, but that it didn't work out that way because once they returned to the Continent, it was discovered that so many of their trucks proved to be mechanically faulty?

No. In the Motor Bns in Armd Bdes each section had their own truck, but otherwise there was never - afaik - a plan that each and every section have it's own, allocated, vehicle*.

In the Desert this was corrupted a bit given the distances and degree of movement involved. But in Italy and NWE it was walking or riding in someone elses trucks. And there were plenty of tucks around - 21st AG had something like two hundred RASC Tpt Coys (although that does include tank transporter, DUKW, and other specialist coys).

The faulty trucks you refer to is probably the fault in the 3-tonners that was discovered in mid-August, which basically grounded a huge chunk of the UK tpt capability. Note that this this occurred well after the organisation and allocation of tpt had been finalised.

In part I expect that this decision was taken based on efficient use of resources. Having a truck permanently allocated to an infantry section is a tremendously wasteful use of that truck. Realisitcally, how far and how often do infantry move? In the case of, say, the British divisions around Caen it's about 15 miles in two months. And there are plenty of other similar examples. To be sure, there are times when being able to move long distances are required, but those times tend to be widely seperated, and don't last very long when they do occur. On a day-to-day basis having a large pool of trucks that can be taked to carry ammo, or fuel, or men as the overall situation requires makes more sense.

For the dash across France in Aug and Sept various inf units were motorised on a semi-permanent basis (in part by grounding an entire Corps near Vire, and stripping virtually all their trucks out to hand over to other Corps), but as soon as the chase was over the trucks were returned to their rightful owners.

Regards

Jon

* Possible exception: I'm not completely sure about the Inf Bdes in Armd Divs. Those inf bns might have had their 'own' vehicles.

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, thanks. August fits well with my own timeline. What you say about the efficient use of trucks is certainly logical, except that in situations like August/September '44 you have hard choices between moving troops or moving supplies. That the Allies couldn't do both is part of the reason they ran out of steam. But then again, it's questionable how much more traffic the road net could have sustained anyway.

Michael

[JonS]

Yeah. But the whole point behind efficient use is it presupposes you don't have enough trucks to do both. Which they didn't. No one did. Given that, what is the best use for a limited resource - central pool, or decentralised allocation?

Also, bear in mind that in explotation periods the proportions tend to get turned upside down. Fuel tonnage goes through the roof, but ammo used goes through the floor. (Engineer stores probably goes up too, eg Bailey bridging). What that means in terms of space for troopies I'm hesitant to say ... except that clearly there wasn't enough trucks to do it all. Which is what you came up with.

Free-association-thought: the lengthening lines of communication will be dropping the effective forward lift.

[Michael Dorosh]

Every infantry platoon in the CW armies did have its own truck. But they kept the ... wait for it ... Bren Gun tripods on it. I'm not even kidding. It was a 15-cwt truck, and sleeping gear, large packs, spare clothing, gas masks, possibly tentage and other platoon stores went on it - including the Bren tripod/anti-aircraft sights, when actually retained.

No one actually rode in the truck, save the driver. The Hasty P's "F" Echelon trucks got caught up at Assoro by being told it was safe to drive up a road and laager for the night, supposedly in a rear area. The Germans laagered for the night on the same road, and both sides got a bit of a surprise in the morning. Took a while after Sicily for the F Ech drivers to trust anyone telling them it was "safe" to drive forward after that...

[JonS]

According to a UK Inf Bn Org chart I have lying around dated Nov 1943, each bn had the following vehs:

Bn HQ:

. 6 x Bicycle

. 5 x Motorcycle solo

. 1 x Car 2 Seater

. 1 x Car 5cwt 4x4 (which I think is the jeep)

. 1 x Car 4 Seater

. 2 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 1 x Truck 15cwt Office

. 1 x Truck 1 cwt Personnel

. 1 x Carrier Universal

HQ Coy

Coy HQ

. 1 x Truck 15cwt GS

Signal Platoon

. 3 x Bicycle

. 4 x Motorcycle solo

. 1 x Car 5cwt 4x4

. 2 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 1 x Truck 15cwt 4x4 Personnel

Admin Platoon

. 2 x Motorcycle solo

. 1 x Car 5cwt 4x4

. 1 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 1 x Truck 15cwt Water

. 12 x Lorry 3ton GS

. 1 x Lorry 3ton Winch

Support Coy

Coy HQ

. 1 x Car 5cwt 4x4

. 1 x Truck 15cwt Personnel

Mortar Platoon

. 3 x Motorcycle solo

. 3 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 7 x Carriers 3-inch Mortar

Carrier Platoon

. 7 x Motorcycle solo

. 3 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 13 x Carriers Universal

Anti Tank Platoon

. 5 x Motorcycle solo

. 2 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 12 x Carriers Loyd

. 1 x Carriers Universal

Rifle Coy(x4, each with)

Coy HQ

. 3 x Bicycle

. 1 x Car 5cwt 4x4

. 3 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 1 x Carrier Universal

Rifle Platoon(x3 in each coy, each with)

. 1 x Bicycle

Totals:

. 60 x Bicycle

. 26 x Motorcycle solo

. 1 x Car 2 Seater

. 8 x Car 5cwt 4x4

. 1 x Car 4 Seater

. 22 x Truck 15cwt GS

. 1 x Truck 15cwt Office

. 2 x Truck 15cwt Personnel

. 1 x Truck 15cwt Water

. 1 x Truck 15cwt 4x4 Personnel

. 12 x Lorry 3ton GS

. 1 x Lorry 3ton Winch

. 19 x Carrier Universal

. 12 x Carrier Loyd

. 7 x Carrier 3-inch Mortar

[ August 28, 2006, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Emrys]

Thanks for the list.

I am fascinated by that 1 x Car 2 Seater and wonder what it could have been. BTW, I count 8 jeeps in the battalion and you list only one in your total.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

2 seater car might - might - indicate a car, 1/4 ton, 4x4 (aka Jeep) with a radio tray in the back rather than than a bench seat.

[flamingknives]

'44, that list is:

* 33 x bicycles

* 27 x motorcycles

* 1 x car 4-seater

* 3 x car 2-seater

* 8 x car 5-cwt

* 1 x 15-cwt Office

* 1 x 15-cwt Pers

* 26 x 15-cwt GS

* 13 x 3-ton GS

* 12 x Loyd carriers

* 27 x Universal Carriers

* 7 x carriers fitted for 3" mortars

* 2 x 15-cwt, 2 wheel, water bowsers

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

2 seater car might - might - indicate a car, 1/4 ton, 4x4 (aka Jeep) with a radio tray in the back rather than than a bench seat.

Or it could be a saloon car of some descripton, which were apparently in service, according to George Forty, "British Army Handbook", like the Austin 10, Standard 10 and Hillman Minx.

[Harry Yeide]

From the 3d Infantry Division's history, regarding operations in southern France: “Improvisation paid dividends. It was found that an entire infantry battalion could be completely loaded on transportation within a regiment, including tanks, [tank destroyers], jeeps, and other assorted vehicles without having recourse to non-organic vehicles. It was a common sight to see a whole rifle battalion moving down a road—doughboys draped over the 3-inch guns of tank destroyers, clinging to the slippery-sided tanks of the 756th, or loaded sixes-and-sevens to trailer-hauling jeeps."

[JonS]

And the other two battalions in the regiment ... ?

(BTW, tanks and TDs in a regt? I fink not ...)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

And the other two battalions in the regiment ... ?

Walked or caught some other ride. But you could move the whole regiment short distances one battalion at a time.

I think Trevor Dupuy in Numbers, Predictions and War relates somewhere that one of the US divisions in Italy moved some distance (15 miles?) in one day using their own transport.

(BTW, tanks and TDs in a regt? I fink not ...)

Why not? There was usually a battalion of one or the other (and occasionally both) attached to the division, and companies and even platoons were parceled out at need. In a pinch, and if they weren't needed elsewhere, the whole battalion could be committed to helping one of the regiments move forward.

Michael

[JonS]

Right, but the tpt provided by the tanks and TD isn't organic to the regt. Using a whole battalion of tracked vehs to, 'in a pinch', help one of the regts fwd isn't really all that different to allocating a GS tpt coy for the same task. (Although it's probably easier to arrange givn that the track bn is already allocated to the div)

On the other, I realise you can shuttle, but distance will be limited, or speed low. As the original quote stated "improvisation pays dividends", but it isn't a practical replacement.

Also, while organic vehs of Bns and regts (and bdes, although I don't think there was all that much organic to a UK bde) can be used to tpt their inf, they can't simultaneously be used to do what they are supposed to be doing - providing resupply, providing fwd and flank protection, moving eqpt, etc.

[Michael Dorosh]

If Patton had a bird about overstrained drivetrains by the addition of logs and sandbag "armour", I can only imagine what he would have said about carting a battalion of infantrymen from pillar to post on tracks...at 20mph...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

On the other, I realise you can shuttle, but distance will be limited, or speed low. As the original quote stated "improvisation pays dividends", but it isn't a practical replacement.

Also, while organic vehs of Bns and regts (and bdes, although I don't think there was all that much organic to a UK bde) can be used to tpt their inf, they can't simultaneously be used to do what they are supposed to be doing - providing resupply, providing fwd and flank protection, moving eqpt, etc.

Right. Which is why it would have been desirable to have lots of trucks organic at least as far down the organizational chart as the rifle company. Except, there just weren't that many trucks available. So the ones on hand in theater were sent where they were thought to be needed the most, and a backlog built up elsewhere. Too bad about having to blow up the rail system. War is hell.

Michael