Info needed on how military formations are organised

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Like most people on dakka, I'm a student of military history and historical wargaming.

In recent months, I've decided to take my knowledge to the next level.

For years I've read about the battles, the campaigns, the struggles, and in that time, I tended to gloss over the maps, the formations, and the tables of organization.

That's not to say I don't have at least a working knowledge of most thing e.g. knowing the difference between a regiment and a division, an army and an army group etc etc

But on closer inspection of these formations, one or two things seem to confuse me. To be fair, I'm easily confused

but I thought I'd ask the knowledgeable people of dakka for the answers.

My focus right now is the early battles of WW2: 1939-41. At this moment, I'm reading about Operation Compass 1940-41, the opening battle of the North Africa campaign as the British and Commonwealth forces attempt to repel an Italian invasion of Egypt.

Below is the order of battle for the British and Commonwealth forces. Because of its size, I've hidden it in spoilers.

Most of it makes sense e.g 3 infantry brigades in an infantry division etc etc

But here's the confusing bit. You'll note that there is corps troops, divisional troops, and divisional services. The services I can get: repair workshops, ambulances, radio and signalmen etc etc

But what do the corps troops and the divisional troops do? Are they separate units? Independent commands? Reinforcements to plug gaps?

In an effort to keep this thread as short as possible, I haven't included Italian forces, but the Italian order of battle seems to have something similar. Obviously, being a much larger force, their formations are grouped into corps instead of divisions, but the general in charge seems to have a lot of units attached to his HQ. Are they 'bodyguard' units for the Italian general or troops that guard his field HQ, or do they go into battle as separate units or reinforcements? Or something

Thanks for any information.

Spoiler:

**djones520**

Staff. G1, G2, G3, etc..

Let's look at the 101st (The division I work with).

You have Division.

1st Brigade Combat Team
2nd Brigade Combat Team
3rd Brigade Combat Team
101st Airborne Division Artillery
101 Combat Aviation Brigade
101st Sustainment Brigade

Those are the major units of the Division. Now those units make up the maneuver elements of the Division, but you need staff at the Division level to manage it all. Division has a Headquarters Battalion. It has a handful of Companies that see to certain responsibilities.

A Corp works the same way. 18th Airborne Corp has oversite of 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain, and 3rd Infantry Divisions. It needs staff as well to manage all of that.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

djones520 wrote:
Staff. G1, G2, G3, etc..

Let's look at the 101st (The division I work with).

You have Division.

1st Brigade Combat Team
2nd Brigade Combat Team
3rd Brigade Combat Team
101st Airborne Division Artillery
101 Combat Aviation Brigade
101st Sustainment Brigade

Those are the major units of the Division. Now those units make up the maneuver elements of the Division, but you need staff at the Division level to manage it all. Division has a Headquarters Battalion. It has a handful of Companies that see to certain responsibilities.

A Corp works the same way. 18th Airborne Corp has oversite of 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain, and 3rd Infantry Divisions. It needs staff as well to manage all of that.

That makes sense. The bigger the formation, the more people you need to run and organise it, gather intelligence etc etc

In your example, the artillery is obviously the artillery, and the aviation must be the helicopters, aeroplanes etc etc.

Is it the case that the corps units or the divisional units are there if the general decides to go into battle or something, and thus needs a 'bodyguard' or something?

Rommel was always near the front line, but I doubt if he went in on his own.

**djones520**

No. The Corp, Division, even Brigade staff are not maneuver elements. They are staffed with folks trained to fight, but they are not tasked to fight.

Their role is purely managerial. Provide the guidance, provide the support. The units under them provide the fight.

In all honesty, the largest combatant unit is a Company. When you get to Battalion, that's where the staff positions start. A Battalion has oversight of a number of companies. Those companies are the ones that actually do the combat. An Infantry Battalion will be on the line, sure, but they'll be directing the engagement, that the Companies are partaking in.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Hmm.

Probably need a book on this, a dummy's guide to military formations or something.

Say what you want about the ancient world, but there is something to be had for the simplicity of just turning up on a battlefield and fighting it out until the last man is standing.

**djones520**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Hmm.

Probably need a book on this, a dummy's guide to military formations or something.

Say what you want about the ancient world, but there is something to be had for the simplicity of just turning up on a battlefield and fighting it out until the last man is standing.

It can be a complex issue. I was assigned to work with the Army (I'm Air Force) for a couple of years before I fully started to grasp it all.

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
Staff. G1, G2, G3, etc..

Let's look at the 101st (The division I work with).

You have Division.

1st Brigade Combat Team
2nd Brigade Combat Team
3rd Brigade Combat Team
101st Airborne Division Artillery
101 Combat Aviation Brigade
101st Sustainment Brigade

Those are the major units of the Division. Now those units make up the maneuver elements of the Division, but you need staff at the Division level to manage it all. Division has a Headquarters Battalion. It has a handful of Companies that see to certain responsibilities.

A Corp works the same way. 18th Airborne Corp has oversite of 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain, and 3rd Infantry Divisions. It needs staff as well to manage all of that.

Can you note what a modern Brigade combat team is generally comprised of? I think he might be getting at that.
Example:
Company: three platoons plus a mortar/antitank platoon
Battalion: four companies plus artillery company
Regiment: etc.
To the OP. You can google that as well. Note Flames of War has specific division TOEs if that is what you are looking for.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
TOE of the 5th Armored division in WW2:
http://www.combatreels.com/5th_Armored_Division.cfm

TOE of First Marine Division in 1944. Dad's TOE was not much different when it was at Chosin.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=M2hWRfCg&id=C48B2A62155E7F559E62880ED1D6FA7E7BF81A43&thid=OIP.M2hWRfCgQl81c-Pro2xWRADmEs&q=1st+Marine+Division+Okinawa&simid=608002194993777274&selectedIndex=27

(use it to count up the number of BARs they had-these guys had serious machine guns).

**djones520**

I'm more experienced with how a CAB works then a BCT so I'll break that down.

101st Combat Aviation Brigade is made up of 5 Battalions, and Brigade Staff.

You have 1-101, 5-101, 6-101, 2/17, and 96th ASB.

1-101 (No Mercy) is a Battalion made up of Headquarters Company which includes all of the Battalion Staff, 3 companies of Apaches, Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie. Delta Company is made up of the helicopter mechanics. Echo Company is made up of everything else. Ground vehicle mechanics, cooks, etc.

5-101 (Eagle Assualt) has the same structure, but it's A, B, and C Companies are UH-60's, Blackhawks.

6-101 (Shadow) is called a GSAB, or General Support Aviation Battalion. Their Alpha Company flies UH-60's configured for Command and Control purposes. Bravo Company flies CH-47's, Chinooks. Charlie Company flies HH-60's, Medevac helo's. They also have a Fox Company, which is made up of Air Traffic Controllers.

2/17 (Out Front) is the 2nd Squadron of 17th Cavalry Regiment. (this can be very confusing, but just accept that while there are 4 squadrons for 17th Cav, this one only belongs to 101 CAB). They also fly Apaches, though up until a couple of years ago, they flew the OH-58 Kiowa Scout Helicopter, but those were retired in 2015. Cav likes to think they're special, so they name everything different. Squadrons (Battalion), Troop (Company), etc. No bigger primadona then a Cav Scout.

96th Aviation Support Battalion is a support Battalion. They provide extra staff, equipment, logistical support, etc.

Now the confusing part?

Each of these Battalions provide a single thing. 5-101 is not going to blow tanks up with their Blackhawks. 1-101 is not going to transport troops into the field on their Apaches.

Aviation, in the Army's eyes, is a force multiplier for one guy. The Ground Force Commander, typically a Brigade Combat Team Commander. You notice how each BN had 3 flying Companies? Well a CAB can typically be split up into 3 separate Task Forces. Task Force No Mercy, Task Force Eagle Assault, Task Force Shadow.

The HHQ of each of those BN's will stand up their own Task Force. A company from 1-101, 5-101, and 6-101 (A platoon of CC birds, Chinooks, and HH-60's) will be assigned to each of those task forces. Now, your 1-101 Commander has command of a full aviation Task Force that is capable of attacking targets, conducting air assualts, heavy lift, medevac, etc. This BN sized Task Force will be typically be assigned to support a BCT. Notice how 101st Division has 3 BCT's? 3 Aviation Task Forces.

Now 2/17 can operate on this level as well, but it will typically be used more as a sledge hammer, as it is right now in its deployment to Iraq. It's just out there with its Apaches gunning ISIS mofo's down.

Anyways, that's kind of a basic run down of how that works. Hope I didn't make it to confusing.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

My thanks to djones and frazz for detailed replies

Returning to the example of the Western Desert Force.

If you look at the make up of the 4th Indian Division (remarkable story behind these guys that's worth checking out and a highly decorated formation)

then most of it makes sense. 3 infantry brigades makes up the division, and there is enough trucks, first aid guys, radios, medics ect etc to support them.

Obviously, the general in charge of the division will need radio men, maps, people to pass on orders and process information etc

And as you go up into Corps level, the more responsibility, the more support staff you need.

7th armoured division will be slightly different, being a tank division and all, and obviously they will have recon units to spy the land before the tanks go in.

BUT

You look at the Corp Troops, and all the individual units underneath the entry, and IMO, there's enough there to equip another division, or at least 2 Brigades worth, so why wouldn't they be sent into battle as a fighting division or brigades?

Unless they are there to plug gaps or act as reinforcements or something?

**jhe90**

Yeah and then as things grow things get a tad more tricky as a larger campaign you grow to add artillery, logistics, in modern terms AA too, and heavy artillery and other extra elaments.

Eventually the air assets and sea assets join a larger and larger chain of commands. Units, dependents and such.

I think a spider Web is more what a large campaign becomes as multiple corps, fleets and such join into one complex system that has to function as one orgonisation. Each section a key part to success of the whole.

Once you get above a Corps, things get a tad confusing.

Eventually with multiple command sections, and now a pinnacle senior headquarters company who link to the sub commands and such.

Got to respect the people who plan and make this stuff work.

**trexmeyer**

At the absolute simplest level a self reliant fighting force has to have all the elements needed to operate independently, but because of how the UK and American armies are organized that means pulling together disparate groups that exist at various sizes and structures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_air-ground_task_force

This is the smallest self reliant force that I can think of in either military, but it does a good job of covering the basics.

On a broader scale you'll have an organization roughly similar to this:

Overall command element

Combined Arms element (depending on the mission objective you'll have some form of infantry (Airborne, Air Assault, Mechanized, etc), typically an armor element, artillery, close air support

Special Forces/Recon. I think recon units (scout snipers and the like) would fall under the Combined Arms element, but I am not sure. A special forces unit would be temporarily attached to the overall command and drawn from the overall special operations command in the US military. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Intelligence element (to include counter intelligence, analysts, and now you'll have cyber forces as well)

Logistics element (this is everything from cooks, ammo supply, field medics, admin, transportation, etc)

Typically looking at historical orders of battle is confusing for me because many units have a long history that at times belies their current status. For example the 101st Airborne is now an air assault unit, not paratroopers.

**jhe90**

Also this page.

It lists all the elament involved in a Small deployment with a handy chart or two to show it all laid out and how it stacks under multiple HQ and overall HQ elament.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Thanks for the replies

Now, I think I've got the whole thing worked out. I could be horribly wrong on this

but this is how I think it works. Please bear with me

I looked at German army organisation on the Eastern Front, British army in Normandy, and even the US army in Vietnam etc etc

And they all follow a similar pattern. A pattern repeated in the example above of the Western Desert Force.

The Corps troops and the divisional troops are like upgrades and bonuses. Optional extras, depending on the mission.

For example, you'll note at Corps level, the Western Desert Force has an anti-aircraft regiment and some heavy artillery.

For argument's sake, the AA regiment has 50 AA guns. But no commander will deploy 50 AA guns as one unit. Rather, those 50 AA guns will be divided amongst lots of battalions or companies so that everybody has some AA protection. They are only listed as one whole unit for admin purposes.

Same with the artillery. A British battalion would have 25 pounder guns attached to it, with the heavier 5.5 inch guns used at the Corps commander's discretion, depending on how the battle was going. E.g the big guns are only used as a massive barrage at the start of an operation to soften up the enemy.

So the more powerful the military formation, the better the upgrades and assets. Corps is greater than a division, division greater than brigade etc etc

This revelation came to me at 2am this morning when I was looking at German forces in Russia in WW2.

The big heavy siege guns were only to be found at a certain level and not individual platoons. You would only use the big guns for special situations like laying siege to a city or something.

If I'm wrong please tell me.

**Darkjim**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For argument's sake, the AA regiment has 50 AA guns. But no commander will deploy 50 AA guns as one unit. Rather, those 50 AA guns will be divided amongst lots of battalions or companies so that everybody has some AA protection. They are only listed as one whole unit for admin purposes.

That makes a lot of sense. I spend many a happy hour designing vast IG mech forces (unbuyable in 40K but possible when Titanicus is GWs biggest ever hit and we get the whole range in plastic 8mm), and I've often tried to decide whether units like AA should be one big unit at the command level, or smaller units allocated to each battle unit, but as you say they're both, one big unit for training and admin, allocated depending on need.

Also on this subject, when I was designing my FOW US Armored, I bought this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/U-S-Army-Armored-Division-1943-1945/dp/1445738953/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505383710&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=us+armoreded+yves+bellanger

Which is just great on the subject in hand.

**Chute82**

1)Trooper infantry
2)Team usually two team per squad
3)Squad usually 4 squads----3 assault 1 weapons (machine guns, anti armor) per platoon
4)Platoon usually 4 platoons to company 1,2,3 infantry, hq platoon CO and mortars
5)Company ----5 companies per battalion usually 3 infantry 1 anti armor heavy weapons and 1 hq company ( cooks, support, etc)
6)Battalion 3 infantry battalion make a brigade
7)Brigade 3 infantry bats, plus art bat, plus engineers , and other support
8)Division.. 3 infantry brigade +support elements make a div
9)Corps several divisions + support
10)Army add them all together

At least that how it was when I was a trooper...

Fun fact my old company CO is the division commander of the 101st, great guy and one hell of a great officer

**Iron_Captain**

I don't know about the British army unfortenately, but I can tell you something about how the Russian motor rifle brigade is organised. Maybe that helps a bit in general understanding of military organisation.

We start at the company level:

A Russian motor rifle company consists of 4 fighting platoons and a HQ. Each platoon is 3 squads of 9 soldiers mounted in 3 BMP troop carriers. The 4th platoon is equipped with anti-tank or heavy machine gun weaponry. The HQ consists of the company leader and his assistants in an additional vehicle.

Three motor rifle companies are combined into a motor rifle battalion (warning: picture is huge):

Spoiler:

Apart from the motor rifle companies, a batallion gets several specialised platoons as well as dedicated logistical platoons that are equipped with trucks and such and of course a larger HQ unit (the larger the formation, the larger the HQs get).
This picture shows how these supporting units were organised in Soviet times:

Spoiler:

In the modern Russian army, the organisation is still the same, though the vehicles and equipment are sometimes different.

Several battalions are then combined into a brigade:

Spoiler:

At which point you will notice the complexity escalating rather quickly as you now have loads of specialised support units. You get armoured companies and mortars to support the mechanised infantry with heavier firepower as well as whole battalions dedicated to artillery, air defense, construction, maintenance and pretty much everything else you need in an army. Also, the HQ is by now so large it has an entire company-level formation. Basically, a motor rifle brigade is pretty much a small self-contained army.

To go even bigger, brigades are organised into armies. This brigade for example could be one of several brigades in the 58th Army:

Spoiler:

An army aside from several brigades also includes yet more dedicated logistical and specialised support formations.
In the Russian forces, several armies can then be combined into a military district, but that only adds administrative functions (and at that point you also get the air force folded in).

So yeah. Hope this was helpful for increasing your understanding of army organisations.

**jhe90**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies

Now, I think I've got the whole thing worked out. I could be horribly wrong on this

but this is how I think it works. Please bear with me

I looked at German army organisation on the Eastern Front, British army in Normandy, and even the US army in Vietnam etc etc

And they all follow a similar pattern. A pattern repeated in the example above of the Western Desert Force.

The Corps troops and the divisional troops are like upgrades and bonuses. Optional extras, depending on the mission.

For example, you'll note at Corps level, the Western Desert Force has an anti-aircraft regiment and some heavy artillery.

For argument's sake, the AA regiment has 50 AA guns. But no commander will deploy 50 AA guns as one unit. Rather, those 50 AA guns will be divided amongst lots of battalions or companies so that everybody has some AA protection. They are only listed as one whole unit for admin purposes.

Same with the artillery. A British battalion would have 25 pounder guns attached to it, with the heavier 5.5 inch guns used at the Corps commander's discretion, depending on how the battle was going. E.g the big guns are only used as a massive barrage at the start of an operation to soften up the enemy.

So the more powerful the military formation, the better the upgrades and assets. Corps is greater than a division, division greater than brigade etc etc

This revelation came to me at 2am this morning when I was looking at German forces in Russia in WW2.

The big heavy siege guns were only to be found at a certain level and not individual platoons. You would only use the big guns for special situations like laying siege to a city or something.

If I'm wrong please tell me.

Yeah, special weapons. Heavy artillery and seige weaponry, MLRS or the heavy air assets, specialist forces, or other general things like that are assigned by higher levels on as needed basis for the task at hand.

A heavy company, who man and oporate. Escorts etc are assigned to sectors as they need them etc.
Then they moved and relocated or pulled back as the battle progress in campaign demands..

That's how it works. When say a assault was a defensive line, you might request or be assigned heavy Armour support, or artillery etc.

The system means many elements of the. Specialist company as such can be assigned to 5 different places on regular basis where most needed.

Some assets are also too valuable to not be held in reserve etc until required. Or other services like a signing naval artillery support for a squad pushing up coast etc.

Also same with like assigning special forces to support a mission when regular infrintry need say a elite assault unit to be tip of spear or provide unique capabilities.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Excellent replies from jhe90 and Iron Captain

It's all making sense now. Some units are held as reserves to plug gaps or make up losses, or exploit success, and other units may be used for special tasks or missions.

For example, in the example I give, a lot of the British recon units were grouped together as a roving force to harass the Italian army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkjim wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For argument's sake, the AA regiment has 50 AA guns. But no commander will deploy 50 AA guns as one unit. Rather, those 50 AA guns will be divided amongst lots of battalions or companies so that everybody has some AA protection. They are only listed as one whole unit for admin purposes.

That makes a lot of sense. I spend many a happy hour designing vast IG mech forces (unbuyable in 40K but possible when Titanicus is GWs biggest ever hit and we get the whole range in plastic 8mm), and I've often tried to decide whether units like AA should be one big unit at the command level, or smaller units allocated to each battle unit, but as you say they're both, one big unit for training and admin, allocated depending on need.

Also on this subject, when I was designing my FOW US Armored, I bought this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/U-S-Army-Armored-Division-1943-1945/dp/1445738953/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505383710&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=us+armoreded+yves+bellanger

Which is just great on the subject in hand.

I look at more examples and it all makes sense again.

For example, the 51st Highland Division in Normandy had a machine gun battalion on its table of organisation for the division.

Would you deploy 30 heavy machine guns as one unit? No, you would say here's two machine guns for that company, 5 for that battalion, 1 for that platoon etc etc

you'd spread them around.

Naturally of course, the German army had to complicate things with their battlegroups and grabbing units left, right, and centre, from anywhere they could, and using them as ditch ditch defenders in Russia.

Don't even try to make sense of that

**jhe90**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Excellent replies from jhe90 and Iron Captain

It's all making sense now. Some units are held as reserves to plug gaps or make up losses, or exploit success, and other units may be used for special tasks or missions.

For example, in the example I give, a lot of the British recon units were grouped together as a roving force to harass the Italian army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkjim wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
For argument's sake, the AA regiment has 50 AA guns. But no commander will deploy 50 AA guns as one unit. Rather, those 50 AA guns will be divided amongst lots of battalions or companies so that everybody has some AA protection. They are only listed as one whole unit for admin purposes.

That makes a lot of sense. I spend many a happy hour designing vast IG mech forces (unbuyable in 40K but possible when Titanicus is GWs biggest ever hit and we get the whole range in plastic 8mm), and I've often tried to decide whether units like AA should be one big unit at the command level, or smaller units allocated to each battle unit, but as you say they're both, one big unit for training and admin, allocated depending on need.

Also on this subject, when I was designing my FOW US Armored, I bought this

https://www.amazon.co.uk/U-S-Army-Armored-Division-1943-1945/dp/1445738953/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505383710&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=us+armoreded+yves+bellanger

Which is just great on the subject in hand.

I look at more examples and it all makes sense again.

For example, the 51st Highland Division in Normandy had a machine gun battalion on its table of organisation for the division.

Would you deploy 30 heavy machine guns as one unit? No, you would say here's two machine guns for that company, 5 for that battalion, 1 for that platoon etc etc

you'd spread them around.

Naturally of course, the German army had to complicate things with their battlegroups and grabbing units left, right, and centre, from anywhere they could, and using them as ditch ditch defenders in Russia.

Don't even try to make sense of that

Or even a unit might be pulled out to re equip, arm, train or just needs rest and repairs before it can rejoin main line again.

Theres a few reasons why your full order of battle might not be actively deployed. And you have a certain number in garrison further back for a short time.

Any order of battle is now a mix of alot, and all those extras start to come in when you have to rest one portion, or rearm etc.

So added all up, it makes a larger and more rounded picture o hope.

**redleger**

My understanding all of the fighting units on the British side were on the regimental system. Y'all are showing him BCT system. Regimental system would be more inline with what he is looking for.

**trexmeyer**

redleger wrote:
My understanding all of the fighting units on the British side were on the regimental system. Y'all are showing him BCT system. Regimental system would be more inline with what he is looking for.

Yes, but the regimental system has always struck me as being a massive clusterfeth. Props to the Brits for being able to organize it.

**jhe90**

trexmeyer wrote:
redleger wrote:
My understanding all of the fighting units on the British side were on the regimental system. Y'all are showing him BCT system. Regimental system would be more inline with what he is looking for.

Yes, but the regimental system has always struck me as being a massive clusterfeth. Props to the Brits for being able to organize it.

Even more fun tracing the regiments history. Combinations, and the fact older regiments have seniority over others like the guards units.

Regiments merge, combine, and end up in parts you derived parts over time. My great grandfather in WW1 was in multiple ones and battalions.

**Hordini**

trexmeyer wrote:
redleger wrote:
My understanding all of the fighting units on the British side were on the regimental system. Y'all are showing him BCT system. Regimental system would be more inline with what he is looking for.

Yes, but the regimental system has always struck me as being a massive clusterfeth. Props to the Brits for being able to organize it.

Why do you say that? The USMC uses the regimental system and it works pretty well.

**trexmeyer**

Hordini wrote:
trexmeyer wrote:
redleger wrote:
My understanding all of the fighting units on the British side were on the regimental system. Y'all are showing him BCT system. Regimental system would be more inline with what he is looking for.

Yes, but the regimental system has always struck me as being a massive clusterfeth. Props to the Brits for being able to organize it.

Why do you say that? The USMC uses the regimental system and it works pretty well.

I wouldn't say that. The USMC is organized into regiments, but it's not identical. Part of the difference is that the USMC has a very different mission (at least originally, the lines are getting mixed now) than either the US Army or the British Army. Nowadays the MAGTF is the standard structure for deployable Marine forces.

Part of the regimental system that gets glossed over is that regiments were, I don't know if they still are, were responsible for recruiting and maintaining their regiments. Espirit de corps was focused on/within that regiment. You see that somewhat in the US Army with unit patches and the legacy of such units as the 101st Airborne.

The USMC has that in a small part, but it's frowned upon. There are units with more 'glorious' history, IIRC the 7th Marine Regiment is one of the more storied units. However, there are no unit patches and loyalty is not supposed to be the unit, but to the Marines as an entirety.

**redleger**

trexmeyer wrote:
Hordini wrote:
trexmeyer wrote:
redleger wrote:
My understanding all of the fighting units on the British side were on the regimental system. Y'all are showing him BCT system. Regimental system would be more inline with what he is looking for.

Yes, but the regimental system has always struck me as being a massive clusterfeth. Props to the Brits for being able to organize it.

Why do you say that? The USMC uses the regimental system and it works pretty well.

I wouldn't say that. The USMC is organized into regiments, but it's not identical. Part of the difference is that the USMC has a very different mission (at least originally, the lines are getting mixed now) than either the US Army or the British Army. Nowadays the MAGTF is the standard structure for deployable Marine forces.

Part of the regimental system that gets glossed over is that regiments were, I don't know if they still are, were responsible for recruiting and maintaining their regiments. Espirit de corps was focused on/within that regiment. You see that somewhat in the US Army with unit patches and the legacy of such units as the 101st Airborne.

The USMC has that in a small part, but it's frowned upon. There are units with more 'glorious' history, IIRC the 7th Marine Regiment is one of the more storied units. However, there are no unit patches and loyalty is not supposed to be the unit, but to the Marines as an entirety.

Edit: failed to properly read. Carry on trooper.