Australian 9th Division question

[Runyan99]

I don't understand the naming convention.

For example, the 20th Infantry Brigade consists of three battalions. They are the 2/13th, the 2/15th, and the 2/17th.

The other battalions in the division follow the same pattern.

I don't understand the 2 part. Why 2/XX? What does this denote?

[Speedy]

The 2 means that battalion is part of the 2nd AIF (i.e.- WW2).

This is so it is not confused with a WW1 battalion.

For example, The 8th Battalion was part of the AIF's 1st dvision it fought in the first world war ( there were five AIF inf divisions in WW1 1-5 ).

The 2/8 Battalion was part of the 6th division ( I think) in the 2nd AIF which fought in WW2 ( there were four AIF inf divisions in WW2 6-9 ).

And AIF stands for Australian Imperial Force.

[Pvt. Ryan]

It's nice to see the old hats educating the newbies.

[Andreas]

While we are on that topic (and because I am too lazy to do a search), what does a British naming such as 1/7th Queens mean? I know that it could be an indication that at some point battalions were merged (e.g. 3/4th CLY in Normandy), but was that always the case, or could there be another reason for it?

[Guest Mike]

The british convention is Battalion number/regiment number & regiment name.

So the 1/7th is the 1st battalion of the 7th regiment, named Queens (Queen's own fusileers?? - I have no idea whether such a unit exited).

The British regiment was an administrative unit only, the individual battalions could be assigned anywhere - to different theatres even.

[Andreas]

Nice explanation, but does not explain all of it, since many battalions were just given a single number (e.g. 5th DCLI, or 1st KRRC), although their regiments were old enough to have a number before being named

Then there is the case of 3/4th CLY.

[JonS]

Andreas - you should know by now there is no consistency to be found there

What is the full regimental title for 1/7th (or 1/6th for that matter) Queens? There is a plain "Queens Regiment" now-a-days, but in the 1940s no such beastie existed, as far as I can tell. I think it may refer to "The Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey)" or "The Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment", but neither of them seem to have fought in NWE :confused:

http://regiments.org/milhist/uk/lists/ba1945.htm

Going off dim memory, ISTR that the 1/7th bit refers to an amalgamation of territorial and/or yeomanry and/or regular regiments. The Queens bit seems to have been a rather general appelation for any of the Home Counties regiments.

[ November 12, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

Andreas - you should know by now there is no consistency to be found there

That's what I wanted to have confirmed.

The 131st Brigade (Queen's w/ 1/5th, 1/6th, 1/7th Queens) fought with 7th Armoured in the desert at least after Alamein, also in Italy, and in Normandy and the 'Swan'. After that two of the Queen's battalions were dissolved and replaced with 9th DLI and 2nd Devonshire.

[jrcar]

Well my understanding is a British regiment can have 1 or more battalions. When it has only one then it has the complete name... when it has more than 1 battalion (upto 7?) then it goes 1/XX.

During times of peace the regiment would have only 1 or 2 Bn's (one normally kept in the UK while the other was overseas) during war the Regiment would create new battalions, by splitting off the core of the origninal to forma a new one.

This is certainly true during the Napoleonic era, and is also true in Australia.

Cheers

Rob

[Andreas]

Originally posted by jrcar:

Well my understanding is a British regiment can have 1 or more battalions. When it has only one then it has the complete name... when it has more than 1 battalion (upto 7?) then it goes 1/XX.

'Fraid not. If it has one, it is just the name (e.g. South Notts Hussars). But when it has more than one, most of the time it just has a single number. E.g. 2nd Northants Yeomanry, 6th DWLI.

[jrcar]

Thanks Andreas!

This got me looking on the web (can't find my Napoleonic Source book at the moment, and I don't have many/any books on the Brit army).

Here is a webpage on the QueensWW1 , looks like all the 1/X Bn's are territorials. But I haven't found out why... also some Bn's look like they are formed twice, ie 1/4th and 2/4th.

In this case they are not amagamated units, but other regiments are ie 16/44th.

*****

Found an answer, sort of:

Explanation

text below:

>

> Does anyone, who has gotten this far understand what is meant, in the

> British Army, by 2/5 Bn Leicester Reg? The confusing part is the 2/5. This

> matter came up at the recent meeting of the Western Front Association and

> although I had it completely explained to me it has now all gotten away. No

> insult intended, but I find the British military organization as confusing

> at their former monetary system. Anyhow help will be appreciated.

>

It's not too bad. First of all you have to know that in the British army in

WW1 there were no new regiments created when the army was expanded. The

expansion was handled by adding battalions to existing regiments.

Before WW1 all regiments had 2 'regular' or professional battalions (eg 1

and 2 East Surrey) and the regiments were locally based. (Each battalion was

in fact a pre-Cardwell reform 'numbered' foot regiment) Some regiments had

territorial battalions (reservists - what I once heard referred to as

'themed drinking clubs'), so that made 3. A very few had 4. Often one

battalion served at home and one abroad, rarely both abroad.. Thus at the

start of war one battalion of the East Surreys was in Ireland (which was

still home service) and one in India. They rotated. Each battalion consisted

of 30 officers and 977 men.

2/5 Bn Leicester Regiment was a Territorial Battalion, raised in 1914. It

was disbanded in February 1918 as part of the reforms of that year.

As the total number of men in the army increased, new battalions were

created for them. Thus some regiments had large numbers of battalions - the

East Surreys had 15. The London Regiment had a huge number - 48?

Battalions could be 'Regular' (pre-war), 'Territorial' 'Service' (New Army

units raised for the duration) 'Labour', 'Pioneer' or 'Reserve'. Some

training and reserve battalions could be dissolved in order to send men to

other units, either within their regiment or even outside.

The regiments described as 1/2nd or 2/5th were Territorials, or second-line

troops. The numbering sequence meant that the 2/5 Leicesters were the 5th

battalion to be raised.

For even more detail, go to

http://www.1914-1918.net/

Now - do you want a simple explanation of the pre-1973 money?

Regards

Dick Smith

*******

And in the end the definitive statement:

territorial force explained

What I thought was resonable simple is very complicated!

Cheers

Rob