A Question of Doctrine

[Hamstersss]

During the Civil War, the Union would rebuild regiments with new recruits, while the Confederacy would form entirely new regiments with these recruits and leave the veterens in their depleted status.

From what I understand, the Germans also rebuilt their regiments, using the veterans as a core, so is this the right way to go? Are the benefits, in CMBO terms, of having three regular regiments better than having one crack regiment and two green regiments, or whatever the average depletion would be?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

From what I understand, the Germans also rebuilt their regiments, using the veterans as a core, so is this the right way to go?

It's generally agreed to have been. Perhaps the US Army would have done the same if they had had enough divisions in the theater to pull depleted ones out of the line and allow them to rebuild and retrain. Although I haven't looked closely into the matter, I think once the Germans got really tight for divisions they stopped pulling them out of the line to rebuild them too.

Are the benefits, in CMBO terms, of having three regular regiments better than having one crack regiment and two green regiments, or whatever the average depletion would be?

It wouldn't just be one or two regiments in a division that would get depleted. They would all tend to get worn down pretty thoroughly before being pulled out and sent to a quieter area to absorb replacements and retrain.

But if such a state as you describe did arise, it doesn't seem to me to be a very healthy situation. The commander would tend to use his better troops where the fighting was heaviest, which would mean that they would be the quickest to wear down. But if he threw a less experienced formation into battle before they were seasoned, they would be more likely to undergo a catastrophic collapse which would permanently impair the morale of the survivors.

BTW, something like this did occur in the last months of the war when hastily thrown together division sized Kampfgruppen comprised of bits of this and that were snatched up and thrust into the line. The commander might not even have a very clear idea of how competent his forces were before the enemy fell upon them.

Michael

[ August 19, 2002, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Guest Mike]

I thought it was the Union who kept regiments in the field witn no replacements and the Confederacy that kept them up to strength (or tried to)??

But never mind.....I think the result in modern terms can be seen in some of the extreme resutls from the US Army of WW2.

[unsubstantiated and over-arching generalisation warning]

I believe the doctrine then was to keep individuals in units until they were killed, wounded or somesuch. This resulted in cadres of tired, terrified, cynical veterans and green useless replacements who the veterans couldnt' care less about.

Much the same happened in the Brit Army in some units - eg there were troops in the 7th Armoured Div who had fought all the way from Nth Africa to Normandy, and by 1945 they weern't really all that good - they were understandably keen to get out of it alive rather than to defeat the enemy!!

By vietnam the US forces had gone to an opposite extreme - rotating troops through on a 1 year (or 6 months in some cases??) "fixed term contract" - so again towards the end of their "time" soldiers became understndably more interested in survival than in fighting (more so than usual that is).

Somewhere in between there has to be an optimum where you can keep a soldier "fresh" but experienced.

WW1 actually seems like a good place to start looking. Because of the static nature of the front in the west a unit could reliably be put in the front line for 1 week, reserve for 1 week, and rest for 1 week. Sure it was hell, but war is hell anyway, and something like that rotation might help keep some men a bit saner than being in a firebase forever.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mike:

Somewhere in between there has to be an optimum where you can keep a soldier "fresh" but experienced.

WW1 actually seems like a good place to start looking. Because of the static nature of the front in the west a unit could reliably be put in the front line for 1 week, reserve for 1 week, and rest for 1 week. Sure it was hell, but war is hell anyway, and something like that rotation might help keep some men a bit saner than being in a firebase forever.

It sort of depends on such things as the intensity of the fighting, how many casualties a unit has taken, are they taking or losing ground, and even such factors as how good the chow is and can they keep their feet dry. But on average (and this glosses over a lot of those factors mentioned above), after troops were in combat for three to six months, their efficiency began to seriously decline and it was time, if possible, to pull them off the line and give them a chance to rest and refresh.

Michael