|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 9:51:03 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 9:51:03 GMT -6
Billy:
Yes I know about the NY unit, not the same. Some of the 14th Brooklyn (another interesting anomaly) were also formed from fire departments but I think that lineage had died out with the post 1950 series of reorganizations. I could be wrong here, because when you are tracking Guard Lineages you really have to go down to the company level, and companies that are part of fixed battalions are not always shown in battalion lineages. The company lineages exist but they are buried deep in the bowels of CMH.
Since no one has leaped into the breech on my trivia question the answer is Headquarters and Headquadters Company, 56th Brigade Combat Team, 28th Infantry Division which started life in 1800 as the Weccacoe Fire Company of the Philadelphia City Volunteer Fire Department. In the ACW they were Company B, 72nd Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry (Fire Zouaves)
Billy a clairification on your statement above:
In the Regular Army the existing ten infantry regiments (1-10) were always single battalion organizations during the war. Starting with the 11th through the 19th were three battalion regiments. The regimental headquarters was a no-fighting, non-tactical headquarters, the battalions (eight companies as opposed to ten in the first ten) were to be the fighting units. It was a money saving measure. In most regiments the first and second battalions were formed and saw combat. The third battalion in most of the regiments were either imperfectly formed or not formed at all due to the manpower shortages caused by the attractiveness of service in the volunteers.
After the war in 66 all of the regiments including those that exised pre-war were caught up in the reorganization. That was soon proven to be a trip down Fairy Tale Lane, and they were reorganized once again in 69 by consolidation. I have a complete list of both of these reorganizations if anyone is interested in seeing it here. If so your wish is my command.
It is also worthy of note that in the Regular Army prior to 1921 there was no way of preserving the history of a unit once disbanded. Once a unit was gone it was gone forever. One thing along this line that jacks my jaws is the current 7th Infantry's claim to be the Cottonbalers refering to service at New Orleans. There was a 7th Infantry at New Orleans. That unit is now part of the 1st Infantry achieved by consolidation after the War of 1812. The 7th Infantry of today was then the 8th Infantry and was nowhere near New Orleans. These reorganizations during the 19th century are hard to wade through, so if anyone has any specific questions, ask them.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 10:04:37 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 14, 2011 10:04:37 GMT -6
Quiin, thanks for the clarifications. Here is the infantry regimental reorg of 1869 from the Army Reorganization thread in Independent research: I had this printed out to keep track of how the reorganization of 1866 and 1869 broke up and then re-consolidated various regiments and thought someone else might appreciate the information. From NARA publication M665, p. 15-16: "The increase to 45 infantry regiments in 1866 and the decrease to 25 regiments in 1869 were the result of reorganizations rather than acts of creating new or abolishing old regiments. War Department General Order No. 92, November 23, 1866, provided for the expansion of the number of regiments from 19 to 45 in the following manner: The first, second, and third battalions of Regiments 11-19 were to become Regiments 11-19, 20-28, and 29-37, respectively. New Regiments 38-41 were to be composed of colored men, and new Regiments 42-45 were to be known as Veteran Reserve Corps regiments, which were to be officered by wounded officers and soldiers of the Volunteer Service and the Regular Army. War Department General Order No. 17, March 15, 1869, provided for the reduction of the number of regiments from 45 to 25 according to the following combinations: Regiment | Composition | Regiment | Composition | 1 | 1 and 43 | 14 | 14 and 45 | 2 | 2 and 16 | 15 | 15 and 35 | 3 | 3 and 37 (half) | 16 | 11 and 34 | 4 | 4 and 30 | 17 | 17 and 44 | 5 | 5 and 37 (half) | 18 | 18 and 25 | 6 | 6 and 42 | 19 | 19 and 28 | 7 | 7 and 36 | 20 | No Change | 8 | 8 and 33 | 21 | 21 and 32 | 9 | 9 and 27 | 22 | 22 and 31 | 10 | 10 and 26 | 23 | No Change | 11 | 24 and 29 | 24 | 38 and 41 | 12 | No Change | 25 | 39 and 40 | 13 | No Change |
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 10:34:19 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 10:34:19 GMT -6
Billy: If you really want to see a screwed up mess look at the reorganization of 1815.
As you well know one of my favorite story tellers is Bellah, and I quote from "The Devil at Crazy Man"
"Doctor, the major said, If you were organizing a regiment of infantry, and it was the first regiment of infantry organized in the Army, what would you call it?
What is this major?
It's a straight question Jopp. What would you call it?
Well I expect I'd be inclined to be logical. I'd probably call it the First Infantry.
Precisely - Allshard nodded - but the powers that be didn't They called it the Second Infantry. Now if you accept the fundamental fact that the first Infantry is officially the Second Infantry, you will understand everything there is to know about the Army - Allshard chuckled deep in his throat - because everything else the Army does becomes quite clear when correlated with that fundamental fact And that knowledge should keep you sane"
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 10:37:05 GMT -6
Post by bc on Jun 14, 2011 10:37:05 GMT -6
The closest thing to the Enterprise still around would the the Lexington which is a must see if you are in the Corpus Christi area. Regarding battleships, the North Carolina never struck me as being as big as the Alabama. More like a cruiser.
bc
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 10:59:12 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 10:59:12 GMT -6
Britt: North Carolina is 728 feet 9 inches overall. Alabama is 680 feet overall. Iowa is 887 feet 3 inches overall Texas is 573 overall.
In addition to Lexington, there is Yorktown in Charleston, SC - Intrepid in New York City - and Hornet in Alameda, CA. Unfortunately as DC points out all of the above are highly modified from their WWII state with angled decks, enclosed bows, and a number of other modifications applied in the 1950's and 60's. When Franklin and Bunker Hill passed from the scene the World War II unmodified configuration of the Essex Class passed with them.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 11:34:13 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 14, 2011 11:34:13 GMT -6
Billy Wild, to add to the regiment history, during the ACW, Union regiments were of three battalions I should still be very cross with you but DC has cornered the market in sulking so what the heck.
I never came across Union battalions.I thought that the basic structure was brigade,regiment and company. Also the strenght of these formations varied greatly and the designation of brigade was very misleading.The Irish brigade had been bled white and at Gettysburg numbered no more that 500.Some brigades mustered 2000 .
Cathal Some year ago the JFK paid us a visit anchoring out in Dublin Bay.The crew were ferried ashore and landed on one of the piers at Dunlaoire.Unfortunately a hoist on the carrier developed a fault with the result that the shore boats could not be raised and hundreds of seamen were stranded for the night on the pier much to the delight of the local rossies.But it turned into a great party with the locals supplying beer and barbecue. Did a tour of the New Jersey and hit my head on a hatchway, my God almight is armour less tham forgiving. The armour around the wheel station must have been at least 16 inches thick. Thanks for the info on regiments.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 11:38:04 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 11:38:04 GMT -6
Wild: Now back at you. Do any of the modern units of the Irish Army have a lineage connection to the five Irish Regiments of the British Army that were disbanded in 1922 upon the establishment of the Irish Free State, units like the Connaught Rangers (one hell of a fine unit)
Most of the histories and the orders of battle found in the appendicies ignore the battalion/regimental differentiation. Hennessy's "Return to Bull Run" is a good example of what historians should do. The problem is that Hennessey tries but still does not completely understand: The following is from Hennessy's Orbat at 2d Manassas
Second Division
First Brigade 3rd United States Infantry (no problem) 4th United States Infantry (again no problem) 1st Battalion, 12 United States Infantry (on target (OT) 1st Battalion, 14th United States Infantry (OT) 2nd Battalion, 14th United States Infantry (OT)
Second Brigade Company G, 1st United States Infantry (OT) 2nd United States Infantry (OT) 6th United States Infantry (OT) 10th United States Infantry (OT)
It is in the last two the 11th and 17th United States Infantry where he misses the battalion desigation either through neglect or lack of knowledge.
Two famous regiments the 13th (First at Vickburg) and the 19th (Rock of Chickamauga) are repeatedly refered to as regiments in histories of these battles. In fact only one battalion of the regiment was present and in action.
Always keep in mind that from the founding until 1957 (with the ACW blip of 11-19 notwithstanding) the regiment in the U S Army was both a tactical and an administrative unit. Tactical like a brigade in your army is today. Administrative like a regimental depot is in your army today.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 12:29:47 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 12:29:47 GMT -6
I have about had enough of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber on the other board for this day. I am going to play with my little boats. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 14:47:04 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 14, 2011 14:47:04 GMT -6
I have about had enough of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber on the other board for this day. I am going to play with my little boats. There are none so blind as those who will not see. I've about quit reading that circular logic over there. Billy
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 15:15:27 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 15:15:27 GMT -6
Billy: I do it as pennance for my many sins. So it is a spirtual undertaking. It is sort of like cyber sackcloth and ashes.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 16:54:51 GMT -6
Post by benteen on Jun 14, 2011 16:54:51 GMT -6
14 JUNE 1775 TO 14 JUNE 2011 ---- HAPPY BIRTHDAY UNITED STATES ARMY Quincannon, Sir, I join you in a well earned salute. Happy Birthday United States Army Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 17:09:43 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 14, 2011 17:09:43 GMT -6
Cathal Do any of the modern units of the Irish Army have a lineage connection to the five Irish Regiments of the British Army that were disbanded in 1922 upon the establishment of the Irish Free State, units like the Connaught Rangers (one hell of a fine unit) Quiet the opposite.Regiments such as the Connaught Rangers,Munsters,Dubs,Leinsters were airbrushed out of history,culture,tradition.We did not want to know them.Old vets from these regiments were required to remain quiet and out of sight.No commemorations,no poppy days.The main gate into Stephen's Green [park in central Dublin]is modeled on the Arc de triomphe and bears the names of casualties from these regiments in the Boer war.Sad to relate it is still refered to in some quarters as the traitors gate.You see, just a short distance from the gate is the College of Surgeons still bearing the scars of bullets probably fired by units of these regiments at the insurgents who were holding the building in 1916.After 1922 we wanted nothing to do with the British military.We even had Germans set up our military bands. But much has changed in recent years and the Queen's recent visit has set the seal on this improvement. Reserve units would trace their lineage back to the 4 city battalions who were involved in the rising.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 17:30:55 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 14, 2011 17:30:55 GMT -6
I really did not think so but wanted to know for certain. Being Irish only by extension, I look upon those that fought for the Brits in much the same way as I do the Wild Geese. The fought because it was a job. It was that or starve. I did not realize that some or all of these units fought against the Rising. Shows I guess that what you don't know comes back to bite you.
Up The Republic. Time for a before dinner Bushmills.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 14, 2011 18:38:11 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 14, 2011 18:38:11 GMT -6
Bushmills?I'v just been over on the other board and I could do with a shot or two.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 27, 2011 3:53:51 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Jun 27, 2011 3:53:51 GMT -6
Talking of starving, my Father joined the Territorial Army in 1936 because it was the only way he could get fed at the weekends, alot of his friends did the same, my Dad stayed in the army and got out in 1959, he ended up a Warrent Officer Class Two (Battalion Sergeant Major) 23 years in the army for a good feed. Regards Ian.
|
|