|
Lenses
Jun 13, 2011 11:55:53 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2011 11:55:53 GMT -6
DC: With the 29th as a National Guard Division (numbers 26 to 42) they were somewhat unlike the National Army Divisions (the divisional numbers 76 and above). The personnel were there, but required a lot of reorganization prior to training.
For instance the 115th Infantry was composed of three existing regiments the 1st - 4th and 5th Maryland. The consolidation of these units was required to get them to the strength required of a full TO&E in France. For the 115th this was done shortly after arrival at MacClellan.
For lineage purposes the term constituted means placed on the books of the Army. Organized refers to the General Order of someone assuming command. The Hqs of the 29th was actually organized at Sea Girt, New Jersey and went to MacClellan as a body, although the order was not published until Morton arrives in August 1917. Training formally commenced for the 29th in mid-September 1917. There is mention of some British and French instructors stateside in the records of some divisions. I have found no such evidence in the 29th records, although the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
I would agree about Montana and the Philippines. Not so much though on Mexico. In Mexico there was opportunity to employ larger units above regimental size and at least try out some of the new technologies. Not perfect of course, but at least we were experimenting with some of the more modern stuff.
I would suspect that Massie is speaking about the 1st and 2nd. The 2nd was actually formed in France from regiments that went there seperately, including the 4th Marine Brigade. The 1st Division consisted of pre-existing regular infantry regiments, but they were filled up to the new strength requirements by some very raw people shortly before leaving New York. The first unit to parade in Paris was I think the 16th and they were competent at close order drill, but one would suspect not much more.
No question in my mind that the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Divisions were the best in France. One might also include the 32nd and 42nd as well.
This whole subdiscussion of WWI I think ties in very well with Williams original and damning post of the conditions of the Army on the frontier. We see in this period from the close of the frontier in about 1890 thru the Span Am, Philippine Insurection, Mexico and the lead up to WWI an Army in transition that became aware of those things William points by either intellectual exercise or battle experience. Couple this with the direction of reform set by Root at the behest of TR and you see us at least moving forward after a century of neglect.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 13, 2011 12:13:57 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 13, 2011 12:13:57 GMT -6
Under the impression the Villa Chase was on horseback. Very fluid. Some planes used. But this bears small, small resemblance to the Western Front till the very end.
Given we repeated the same errors everyone else noticed in 1914, still a ways to go. My impression is WWI was so godawful near everyone went intellectually catatonic after first whiff of the trenches. Wash, rinse, repeat.....
The problem is and remains that even when the military gets around to admitting issues and things to improve, and then that floats up the line to the CIC, it still requires an informed, responsible Congress to pay for it in time. Still the issue, atop now the military knows how to play the Congress and extort.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 13, 2011 12:57:40 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2011 12:57:40 GMT -6
DC: Yes it is true that the Villa Chase was largely on horseback. What most do not realize is the the majority of the Army including a heck of a lot of the existing National Guard mobilized and deployed to the border. . I know the 1st Maryland Infantry was down at Eagle Pass, Texas during this period. The point is here that by this mobilization we were learning - re-learning the lessons necessary to employ units of larger size. No the incursion into Mexico did not teach us the ways of the Western Front, the lessons were much more basic., but you have to start somewhere.
Prior to the Villa Expedition, starting in 1911, the Army began concentrating large numbers of RA units in the Southwest. There was an experimental "Maneuver Division" and a lot of other stuff generated by the Root Reforms taking place.
If your interested in these things I would suggest a book written by my good friend John B. Wilson, "Firepower and Maneuver - The Evolution of Divisions and Seperate Brigades" published in 1998, by CMH and still available through USGPO.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 13, 2011 17:28:48 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 13, 2011 17:28:48 GMT -6
Hi Cathal, Could you please explain where the regiment [infantry]fitted into the structure. This side of the pond the regiment is a depot admin training unit. Here it is 3 battalions+ in a brigade but no regiments.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 13, 2011 19:14:40 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 13, 2011 19:14:40 GMT -6
Gladly Richard, but the answer depends on the time frame in which you ask the question.
In World War I the regiment was a three battalion organization somewhat like the British or other nations brigades. Typically it would have a headquarters and headquarters company, and each of the battalions would have a battalion headquarters and four line companies (1st A-D) (2d E-H) (3d I-M)
Regiments were brigaded, with two infantry regiments and a machine gun battalion to a brigade. There were two infantry brigades to a division, along with a third machine gun battalion, a field artillery brigade (of three two battalion regiments) a field signal battalion and an engineer regiment. In addition there were division trains containing all of your logistical assets. There trains themselves were quite extensive numbering in excess of 6000 personnel.
This division was quite large, and as such was not as mobile as would be needed for WWII. In WWII the brigade echelon was eliminated, and the division was reduced to three regiments. The regiments themselved had their D-H-M companies converted to heavy weapons companies. The machine gun battalions were eliminated and those assets were pushed down to the weapons companies and the weapons platoons in the rifle companies. Total artillery was reduced from six to four battalions, The engineers were reduced to one battalion. The trains and command and control assets were also streamlined accordingly.
Based upon experience in WWII by Korea the division had not changed much, with the exception of the addition of a tank battalion It would be more accurate to say it was tweaked. My personal view, and it is only that is the Korea division was probable the best design we fielded, one to which I would have only done one thing to, added a reconnaissance battalion instead of a single company.
In 57 we went into something called Pentomic. The regiments were replaced by five, five company battle groups. This thing was an organizational disaster. My views are somewhat different here too. I think it was an organization about fifty to sixty years ahead of its time, one that required much more advanced technology (which of course was not available at the time). Thus ended the infantry regiment in the U S Army. Shortly after 1962 we went to brigades, much like you have all over the world today.
Look at my piece on the other board under Organization and the Regimental lineage. It will bring you up to speed post 1957.
Anything I have not answered you can PM me. If you think others might be interested here fire away.
PS: Each one of your brigades there in Ireland is the rough equivalent of one of our brigade combat teams under the modular reorganization of the U S Army early in this century. Before that our brigades were flexible organizations that could be tailored with battalions as building blocks, but they depended on division assets for enablers like engineers, signal detachments, logistics, and the like.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 6:26:06 GMT -6
Post by bc on Jun 14, 2011 6:26:06 GMT -6
Forget using the pm. I, for one, enjoy the coffee cooling.
bc
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 6:59:17 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 6:59:17 GMT -6
Britt: You are an incureable romantic.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 7:28:59 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 7:28:59 GMT -6
14 JUNE 1775 TO 14 JUNE 2011 ---- HAPPY BIRTHDAY UNITED STATES ARMY
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 7:34:38 GMT -6
Post by montrose on Jun 14, 2011 7:34:38 GMT -6
I find the discussion of the Army in transition from 1898 to WWI interesting. My grandfather was in the old cavalry. He was a platoon sergeant with George Patton as his company commander. He served in the Philippines, the Pancho Villa excursion, and WWI.
What is interesting is that for WWI he was transferred from the cavalry to the engineer battalion in the 1st ID. He served as a first sergeant. Their was a move to reinforce the deploying divisions with experienced leaders and he was one of them.
My grandfather was very skilled in the decathalon and riding events. There are a bunch of trophies still in the family. Evidently, he and Patton competed together for years. My mother still has letters from Patton to him.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 7:53:41 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 7:53:41 GMT -6
You know William I am facinated with this period, for two reasons. First it is the end of the era of Continental America and the begining of our emergence as a player on the world stage. Second, and the reason I think it is so important here to compliment your original post on this thread, the period shows just how bad a shape we were in when compared to armies of other nations who through circumstance may have become our adversaries.
There is a third reason too. Most of you don't know that I am a ship modeler. There is nothing I enjoy more than displaying my Great White Fleet collection and telling kids stories of how these ships were in on the dawn of modern sea power. In that light I am disturbed to the point of near insane frustration with the neglect of U S S Olympia whose fate is in deep doo doo at the moment. If funds cannot be found to preseve her and get her out of the hands of theves, this historic one of a kind artifact will be re-claimed by the Navy, taken to deep water and be sent to Davy Jones' Locker. These things, Olympia and a documentation of the Army in this critical period of transition must be preserved lest we fail in our obligation to pass on what we know to those who come after us.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 8:01:01 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 14, 2011 8:01:01 GMT -6
Worth saying again, because it still appears.
Patton and Custer had little in common, although Patton's manipulations of the media allow newbies to think he was a conz/Hussar in mindset. Once committed, both were relentless, but Patton had the staff and the brains Custer did not. He did not actually think enthusiasm and momentum was all that was needed.
Patton did the logistics and his homework, the very opposite of Custer. He knew his enemy, and wasn't ever surprised.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 8:13:32 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 8:13:32 GMT -6
DC: I am no Patton fan. That said agree and agree again. The only real brickbat that can be thrown at Georgie during WWII is Hamelberg.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 8:40:28 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 14, 2011 8:40:28 GMT -6
I'm a big fan of the old ships myself. Britain and the US, the ones with long, successful navies, have a strange method for preserving or not: no method at all.
Essentially, England had no money and has saved near nothing. Warspite, Lion, and ships with lineage and of importance became tin cans or scrap without a thought. Of all the ships that were at Jutland, only the Caroline is left. The who?
Victory, of course, and Warrior (which wasn't) but the ships that could have been saved and should have been, no.
The US saves lots of ships that are pretty unremarkable. Sorry, Iowas. It did not save the Enterprise, our most decorated ship ever. It did not save any but ships from states with the cash to preserve them. I'm from Massachusetts, but hey, our battleship saved, Enterprise, not? WTF? Are there ANY Essex carriers saved? The ones that, you know, won the Pacific war with wooden flight decks?
<Er. Yes, four of them. I'll just finish this coffee...........Anyway, none were the Enterprise.>
Had the Serapis or BonHomme Richard survived, would we find the change to save either of them?
The Oregon met a sad fate, and it would be sad to see the Olympia - a yacht, by today's standards, and pretty cheap to keep - go that way as well. It was the site of an important and controversial decision that made us a world power. What the hey?
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 9:01:55 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 9:01:55 GMT -6
DC: Most of the "historic" ships in existance today bear little or no resemblence to the configuration they were in when they made history. The ones that come to mind and are preseved in their historic configuration from WWII are Texas, Kidd, NC, Alabama, and Massachusetts.
The Navy should collectively burn in hell for not saving the Enterprise. When I was a kid in DC (no relation) the plan was to bring Enterprise up the Potomac, and berth her at Jones Point (the Virginia shore of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge) and establish a United States Navy Museum aboard her. Halsey tried his best, but could not raise a paltry amount to save her. As it is the Navy Museum is in the shop at the Washington Navy Yard where my dad was an apprentice as an eighteen year old kid making 16 inch guns, later to be mounted on the North Carolinas, the South Dakotas, and the Iowas. I am glad some of these BB's are saved, if only to serve as a monument to my dad.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 9:25:33 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 14, 2011 9:25:33 GMT -6
DC: Most of the "historic" ships in existance today bear little or no resemblence to there configuration they were in when they made history. The ones that come to mind and are preseved in their historic configuration from WWII are Texas, Kidd, NC, Alabama, and Massachusetts. The Navy should collectively burn in hell for not saving the Enterprise. When I was a kid in DC (no relation) the plan was to bring Enterprise up the Potomac, and berth her at Jones Point (the Virginia shore of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge) and establish a United States Navy Museum aboard her. Halsey tried his best, but could not raise a paltry amount to save her. As it is the Navy Museum is in the shop at the Washington Navy Yard where my dad was an apprentice as an eighteen year old kid making 16 inch guns, later to be mounted on the North Carolinas, the South Dakotas, and the Iowas. I am glad some of these BB's are saved, if only to serve as a monument to my dad. I'm glad you guys brought up the Enterprise as I was wondering about whether it survived after watching a Military Channel documentary about her. Damned shame! When I was a first grader in NC, I contributed pennies to the restoration of the North Carolina as part of the state-wide effort to buy her. What a big, big ship! Quinn, the NY regiment I mentioned was in reference to the lineage question about starting out as a fire department organization, not the division which attempted to perform the river crossing. Wild, to add to the regiment history, during the ACW, Union regiments were of three battalions. During the Army regorganization of 1866, the second and third battalions of each regiment were separated and became new one-battalion regiments. Using the 7th Infantry as an example: the first battalion remained in the 17th, the second battalin became the Sixteenth Infantry and the third battalion became the 25 Infantry. During the reorganization of 1868 or 1869, the infantry regiments were consolidated, the table for that consolidation is in the Independent Research thread somewhere. I'll find it and post the link later. Billy
|
|