I've looked at MK,s site and find it very interesting and also come to the conclusion that no one person in the British Army can give a compleat explanation of the British army organization.My own opinion is that tradition has a great deal to do with the situation as it stands today,trying to keep everyone happy and it grew like Topsy.When i joined the US army the cavalry was making a last ditch stand about being unhorsed,there were still some horse drawn artillery(French 75's) they hadn't got thier 105's yet,and we changed from square to triangular division,but the basic company,regiment,etc stayed the same,after the war we also went the "pentomic division".It must be really quite a paper shuffle to keep things straight in the Brit army,Jeeeeeeeezus.
'
British unit nomenclature
Moderator: John W. Howard
Historically, the TA can been seen as going back many centuries and pre-dating regular armies. However, this earlier service was mostly involuntary until mid 18th century. During the Napoleanic period volunteer part time militias formed for home defence against invasion. The TA really dates back to voluntary part time units formed in the Victorian period as the Volunteer Force. These came to military significance in the Boer War where many Volunteer Corps (meaning units) comprised of volunteers from Volunteer Force units, served for the first time because the regular army was too small to cope. Shortly after, in 1908, the Territorial Force was formed and 108 units were presented with their colours by the King on 19 June that year (a big parade). The basic commitment was a number of evenings and weekends and a 15 day 'camp' each year. In due course the TF was renamed TA.
Interestingly TF units were allowed/expected to buy some of their own equipment, including such things as machine guns.
TF/TA units had a small number of regular officer/WO/SNCO posted to them, mostly to provide instructors. These came from their affiliated regular unit. The adjutant was always a regular officer. TF/TA units were grouped into field formations (brigades and divisons) but these HQs were always commanded and mostly staffed by regulars.
An added complicator in nomenclature is that some units had totally different names to their 'affiliated' regular units. Eg Tyneside Scottish, London Scottish, Queens Westminsters, Monmothshire Regt, London Irish.
For some real complication you had units like the London Scottish (a kilted unit that did not have a 'tartan'), in 1914 their official title was 14th Bn, County of London Regt (London Scottish), their regulars always came from the Gordon Highlanders. There was no 'London Regt' in the regular army. They became 1 Bn London Scottish and raised 2nd and 3rd bns with the latter staying in UK as their training bn, but providing drafts to whatever infantry bn needed them.
WW2 was a bit different. In early 1939 the TA was doubled, so if a regt had 2 reg bns (1 & 2) and 2 TA (3 & 4), the 3rd (TA) bn 'spawned' the 5th Bn. However, on the outbreak of war the regular army and TA were combined (including the Supplementary Reserve, which also had a few inf bns with names unconnected to the reg army) and the regular army reserve into one British Army. When subsequent bns were raised they mostly 'belonged' to an existing regt, given the next 'free' bn number but called 'war formed'.
Interestingly TF units were allowed/expected to buy some of their own equipment, including such things as machine guns.
TF/TA units had a small number of regular officer/WO/SNCO posted to them, mostly to provide instructors. These came from their affiliated regular unit. The adjutant was always a regular officer. TF/TA units were grouped into field formations (brigades and divisons) but these HQs were always commanded and mostly staffed by regulars.
An added complicator in nomenclature is that some units had totally different names to their 'affiliated' regular units. Eg Tyneside Scottish, London Scottish, Queens Westminsters, Monmothshire Regt, London Irish.
For some real complication you had units like the London Scottish (a kilted unit that did not have a 'tartan'), in 1914 their official title was 14th Bn, County of London Regt (London Scottish), their regulars always came from the Gordon Highlanders. There was no 'London Regt' in the regular army. They became 1 Bn London Scottish and raised 2nd and 3rd bns with the latter staying in UK as their training bn, but providing drafts to whatever infantry bn needed them.
WW2 was a bit different. In early 1939 the TA was doubled, so if a regt had 2 reg bns (1 & 2) and 2 TA (3 & 4), the 3rd (TA) bn 'spawned' the 5th Bn. However, on the outbreak of war the regular army and TA were combined (including the Supplementary Reserve, which also had a few inf bns with names unconnected to the reg army) and the regular army reserve into one British Army. When subsequent bns were raised they mostly 'belonged' to an existing regt, given the next 'free' bn number but called 'war formed'.
-
Rodger Herbst
- Associate
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am
All i can say you guys in my opinion the British regimental system is so ingrained in the Brit army it would be impossible to make any drastic changes,the regimental mess is home to many officers and former officers some with lot of political clout.I recall reading when the army was being downsized that plenty of politiking went on,which regiments stayed,who went,who merged.As i said before i think this happened over years and years of trying to make everyone happy,they should have listened to the old Will Rogers saying"When your in a hole,STOP digging".
The 'regimental system' really only applies to infantry and armour, and only the infantry really had it in the form of multi-battalion regiments. Of course since WW2 the Cardwell 'pairs' model of an overseas bn kept topped up with men from a UK based bn has no longer applied. You can blame penicillin and modern medicine generally for that, the dramatic drop in the death toll from disease made it unnecessary, and the post WW2 'small wars' resulted in few combat losses (less Korea).
Traditionally cavalry only ever had 'regiments' of one 'bn'. At least until the creation of the Royal Tk Regt. Of course cavalry seldom served overseas.
Post WW2 there have been no real inhibitions about the 'barriers' created by the regt system, for example cavalry regts have had COs from another regt when they lacked a suitable candidate, as have single bn inf regts, although since the 'administrative bde' (subsequently division) arrangement was introduced in the 1960s they've generally been from a regt in the same bde/div. In WW2 almost all RAC new regts were numbered in either RTR or RAC, of course the RAC had only been formed just before WW2. This conventional 'corps' arrangement was used in WW1 when the MG Corps was created and in WW2 when the Recce Corps was.
The biggest regt has traditionally been the Royal Regt of Artillery, some 690 'regts' in WW2, which has never used the 'pairs' system. It's worth noting that in artillery soldiers (not officers) can remain in the same 'regt' for most of their career.
The general view is that when the same people serve together for many years then unit cohesion is better than if they are posted to another unit every couple of years. The system is now sufficiently flexible that there are no obvious benefits in creating an infantry corps ('branch').
Traditionally cavalry only ever had 'regiments' of one 'bn'. At least until the creation of the Royal Tk Regt. Of course cavalry seldom served overseas.
Post WW2 there have been no real inhibitions about the 'barriers' created by the regt system, for example cavalry regts have had COs from another regt when they lacked a suitable candidate, as have single bn inf regts, although since the 'administrative bde' (subsequently division) arrangement was introduced in the 1960s they've generally been from a regt in the same bde/div. In WW2 almost all RAC new regts were numbered in either RTR or RAC, of course the RAC had only been formed just before WW2. This conventional 'corps' arrangement was used in WW1 when the MG Corps was created and in WW2 when the Recce Corps was.
The biggest regt has traditionally been the Royal Regt of Artillery, some 690 'regts' in WW2, which has never used the 'pairs' system. It's worth noting that in artillery soldiers (not officers) can remain in the same 'regt' for most of their career.
The general view is that when the same people serve together for many years then unit cohesion is better than if they are posted to another unit every couple of years. The system is now sufficiently flexible that there are no obvious benefits in creating an infantry corps ('branch').
-
Rodger Herbst
- Associate
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am
nigelfe,
Do officer's when going to a different regiment or detached service wear the insignia,dress uniform,and the "perks" of the regiment they first joined,in other words as example,once a Royal Scot,always a Royal Scot?
I agree men who stay together get to know each other and especally thier NCO's and it adds to,in my mind as the most important part of a unit
"UNIT COHESION",a unit who sticks together will fight like hell together even in retreat,Chosen reservoir in Korea the German army in the East,most Brit units in the desert,are examples.
Do officer's when going to a different regiment or detached service wear the insignia,dress uniform,and the "perks" of the regiment they first joined,in other words as example,once a Royal Scot,always a Royal Scot?
I agree men who stay together get to know each other and especally thier NCO's and it adds to,in my mind as the most important part of a unit
"UNIT COHESION",a unit who sticks together will fight like hell together even in retreat,Chosen reservoir in Korea the German army in the East,most Brit units in the desert,are examples.
-
Tom Houlihan
- Patron
- Posts: 4301
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 12:05 pm
- Location: MI, USA
- Contact:
Like many thing in the Brit Army, it depends. Legally, a soldier enlists in and an officer is commissioned in a particular regiment or corps, not the army. This might mean that if seconded to another regt or corps he would continue to wear the badges of his own regt or corps but might, for example, wear the beret of the regt or corps to which he was seconded. The obvious exception to this is the SAS, but their casualties are always attributed to parent regts and corps.
-
Rodger Herbst
- Associate
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am
-
John Kilmartin
- Contributor
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:50 pm
- Location: Regina, Saskatchewan