British unit nomenclature

Freiritter · Post by **Freiritter** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:23 pm

I've read some accounts of British units in action. Now, I'm lost by the naming system, examples given: Oxford and Buckinghamshire Regiment, the Coldstream Guards, the Black Watch and others. I've heard that some British regiments were described as " a good county regiment ". Were British units raised by region or is that a holdover in nomenclature from older practices?

nigelfe · Post by **nigelfe** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:11 am

Nobody has ever enlisted in the 'Britsh Army', they enlist in a specific regiment or corps of the Brith Army and in peacetime men could not be involuntarily transferred to another regiment or corps. The regional names of most infantry and a few cavalry regiments meant that they generally recuited from that area but that did not prevent anybody from elsewhere joining. Those with out a locality in their name ometimes had regional ecriuting areas as well.

However, in wartime while a man might be in the regiment of his choice he could be posted to another regiment but not actually join it in the sense of enlistment. From July 1942 the system changed. From then everybody enlisted in the General Service Corps and underwent a few weeks basic training and testing in a Primary Training Centre before being transferred to a 'proper' regiment or corps and being sent to a Corps Training Centre before being posted to a unit via a training formation. The matter of 'proper regiment' was a matter of aptitude, choice and the army's needs.

Liam · Post by **Liam** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:14 am

The Coldstream Guards are not based in nor do they specifically recruit in Coldstream (which is a small town in the Scottish borders). They are called that because they were stationed there when Charles II attempted to restore absolute monarchy and from Coldstream they marched to London to make sure he didn't, and the name stuck as a commemoration. The Black Watch (my own lot) are officially the Royal Highland Regiment and were called the Black Watch due to their dark tartans and the fact that they 'watched' the Highlands for any signs of Jacobite shenannigans. You could spend all day talking about the oddities of British regiments - although you aren't likely to meet many women if you do!

Dan Behr · Post by **Dan Behr** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:23 am

Not to mention the Yeomenry & Territorials !!

Warfare is a bit of a team sport with the British ... I have read that the Germans treated war as a profession , hence the smart uniforms.... the Americans treated it as a job , hence the workman like clothing ... and the British as a field sport ... hence the tweedy look ??

Just read a book by George Fraser ( the author of the Flashman books ) who was with the Border regiment from Cumbria. This regiment comes from the English / Scottish boarder area and dates back to the Boarder Reivers of Elizabethan times.

He served in Burma and mentions the English dialect spoken by the locals; e.g I'm going home to our house = Am gannen yem ta wa hoos.

In the first half of the 20th it paid to join a local regiment so that you could understand each other !!!

Dan

Freiritter · Post by **Freiritter** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:17 pm

So, if I understand it correctly, British units are named ( generally ) by the region of recruiting, any honor titles by unit history and purposes. But, I also have noted units that have the prefix of Royal in the name, examples given: Royal West Kent Regiment, Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Malta Regiment. Does this denote official Royal approval and backing, like the unit was established at the Royal level instead of the local level? Also, if I may, I've read that the RM didn't have the Royal in their name until after circa 1803. What is the importance of the Royal part of a service branch's name, does it denote official establishment as part of the MOD structure? If so, why do some Commonwealth nations also use this prefix in their service branch names? ( Like the Royal Australian Army, the Royal Canadian Air Force. )

Martin Schenkel · Post by **Martin Schenkel** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:17 am

Freiritter wrote:So, if I understand it correctly, British units are named ( generally ) by the region of recruiting, any honor titles by unit history and purposes. But, I also have noted units that have the prefix of Royal in the name, examples given: Royal West Kent Regiment, Royal Tank Regiment and Royal Malta Regiment. Does this denote official Royal approval and backing, like the unit was established at the Royal level instead of the local level? Also, if I may, I've read that the RM didn't have the Royal in their name until after circa 1803. What is the importance of the Royal part of a service branch's name, does it denote official establishment as part of the MOD structure? If so, why do some Commonwealth nations also use this prefix in their service branch names? ( Like the Royal Australian Army, the Royal Canadian Air Force. )

The prefix 'Royal' can only be granted by royal 'permission'. I think it works more along the lines of an honour given to the regiment or branch of service. Since Canada is a part of the Brirish Commonwealth and has the Queen as its head of state, it is still subject to the traditions of the monarchy. However, I'm sure there is a lot of politics involved in such 'Royal' honours. A regiment that didn't promote an officer that happened to be a member of the royal family, probably won't expect to get the Royal prefix :)

To make this more confusing :) , the Canadian military has had a unified and integrated command since the 1960s, so that all branches have lost their independance. No more Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, or Royal Canadian Navy, etc., just generic Land, Air and Sea forces under a single command, known as the Canadian Forces. However, army regiments still largely retain their independance and traditions. For example, instead of once belonging to the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, the Royal Canadian Dragoons are now subordinate to the Land force of the Canadian Forces. Yet the Royal Canadian Dragoons are still subject to the regimental traditions of the old Canadian army (and it's Commonwealth history), such as battle honours, regimental alliances, etc.

nigelfe · Post by **nigelfe** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 1:05 am

As said the prefix 'Royal' is in the gift of the monarch, how a unit gets is one of those things that it not laid down anywhere and not subject to any official procedure.

Innterestingly some moden 'regiments' have it some don't. For example the 'Adjutant General's Corps' does not even though many of its constituent corps did, on the other hand the 'Royal Logistic Corps does (created a couple of years later) even though not all its constituent corps were 'Royal'. The 'Army Air Corps' remains resolutely unRoyal even though the Prince of Wales is their Colonel in Chief! Then there are plenty of 'old' regiments that were/are not Royal either.

Freiritter · Post by **Freiritter** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:40 pm

Well, that's interesting folks, but I'm still confused over the basis of this practice. It seems that the Army operates similar to football clubs and the various Corps are like the leagues that manage these diverse clubs. Also, how can you tell the type of unit, ( Armor, Infantry ) like the 51st Highland Division, while other units you could tell at a glance by their title. Examples given: 6th Airborne, 7th Armoured and maybe the Hussars. ( I had to research to find out what a Hussar was. ) I think that the 51st Highland was an infantry division, though. If don't mind a dumb question, why don't the MOD streamline the nomenclature system?

John Kilmartin · Post by **John Kilmartin** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:15 pm

There are probably two good reasons. First tradition, that is to say the concept of the regiment as an entity that is distinct and long lasting with strange little customs that celebrate the units history and uniqueness. The theory behind this being that this builds the bonds that produce unit cohesion.
The second would be that if you belong to the military in a country you are going to know what role the 'Royal Water Buffaloe Regiment' has but it is unlikely that your opponent will. Just in case they intercept a map or a radio transmission etc. As well some units have their role changed. I know of units that have changed from cavalry to infantry and back. Other units have changed from infantry to machine gun and back. There are also cases of infantry becoming anti-aircraft units returning to the infantry role and back to anti-aircraft.

Martin Schenkel · Post by **Martin Schenkel** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 7:20 pm

Freiritter wrote:Well, that's interesting folks, but I'm still confused over the basis of this practice. It seems that the Army operates similar to football clubs and the various Corps are like the leagues that manage these diverse clubs.

That is a good analogy. In WW2 terms, there was no official Army (like the Navy or Air Force). There were a collection of services and branches.

Also, how can you tell the type of unit, ( Armor, Infantry ) like the 51st Highland Division, while other units you could tell at a glance by their title. Examples given: 6th Airborne, 7th Armoured and maybe the Hussars. ( I had to research to find out what a Hussar was. ) I think that the 51st Highland was an infantry division, though.

This all part of the fun (and confusion) of researching the British Commonwealth Armies! Divisions and Brigades were also largely recruited and raised along regional lines, thus the 15th Scottish Division had Brigades composed mostly (if not exclusively) of Scottish based regiments. Names like Highland, Wessex, Staffordshire, etc., were semi official prefixes given to some Divisions and Brigades that had a large number of regiments from that particular region. However, just because a regiment was from Wessex county, dosen't mean it had to be in a Wessex Brigade or Division. The necessity of war changed the assignments of regiments on a regular basis. While common practice dosen't always include the 'Infantry' designation, you can assume that if the Division isn't specifically armoured, cavalry, airborne, etc, it will be an infantry division.

Over time, you will learn that names like Dragoons, Hussars, Yeomanry, Lancers, etc, are traditional cavalry (mobile) regiments, and thus were the only ones 'good enough' for later conversion to armour, recce, tank, etc, of the modern mobile arms.

If don't mind a dumb question, why don't the MOD streamline the nomenclature system?

Because in the British Commonwealth armies, the traditions of the branch and (in particular) the regiment are often more important than the outcome of wars and battles! :) . Only traditional cavalry regiments are worthy of the armoured role, it is a mortal shame for a recce regiment to be converted to infantry, etc. Many regiments have traditions of hundreds of years, and regimental status can be a very powerful political force. Some infantry regiments still use right, centre, left, or flank for their own unofficial company designations, which date back to the old days of battle lines. Alot of regiments have unique company/squadron designations, relating to their traditions and history. Regimental history and traditions are extremely powerful forces in army life.

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:38 am

Hi Guys,

The British Army's nomenclature has changed over time. The following is the evolution in the title of a fictitious infantry regiment:

Initially regiments created in the 17th Century were raised by a colonel and bore his name. i.e. Guttridge's Regiment.

In the 18th Century they were then numbered sequentially: i.e. 126th Foot.

Some took up specialised forms of warfare and became grenadiers, fusiliers, light infantry, rifles, etc.: i.e 126th Light Infantry.

In Victorian times they received county affiliations usually related to their existing areas of recruitment: i.e. Barsetshire Light Infantry.

Also in Victorian times increasing numbers of regiments received honorary colonels from the royal family and got the prefix "Royal" or their colonel's title: i.e. The Duke of Barsetshire's Own Light Infantry.

After WWII the army contracted rapidly and there were numerous amalgamations: i.e. The Wessex and Barsetshire Light Infantry.

In the light infantry's case further amalgamations made compound names doing justice to all regimental traditions too unwieldy, so there has been a return to a numbering system: i.e. 5th Light Infantry.

Believe it or not, the above is a gross over-simplification of the reality!

Cheers,

Sid.

Rodger Herbst · Post by **Rodger Herbst** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:39 pm

Sid i kinda start to sort out unit ID's,then come along those slash units,like 2/5 what gives Sid?

michael kenny · Post by **michael kenny** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:15 pm

Its all in here about 2/5th, 4/5th Batt. ect.

http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/ ... system.htm

wwiibuff · Post by **wwiibuff** » Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:06 pm

Good site that explains it well. Except I still don't understand what the Territorial Army is.

Liam · Post by **Liam** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:36 pm

It's more or less the same as the US National Guard. Part-time soldiers out for excitement, adventure, the glamour of the uniform and cheap pints in the mess!