|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 22, 2012 10:08:50 GMT -6
Chuck, the Germans were the best at forming battle groups, we tried it with ‘’Jock columns’’ in the western desert, but we could not hold a candle to our friends from the Reich, Napoleon was one of the first I believe to use a combined arms unit with his Corps D'Armée, I don’t have any data on U.S. battle groups, but they must have had the following: Infantry (one Battalion), Artillery (one Battery of 105mm Hows) and Armour (one Company of Shermans), most Armies in WW2 had even at Company level some sort of combined arms: HMGs (direct fire support), Platoon Mortars (small calibre Artillery) and AT assets (Bazookas and AT Rifles) so in a smaller scale it was possible for a standard Infantry Company to hold its own (for a short time) no matter what was thrown at them..
I see what you mean over Custer’s civil war record, but I always look at your posts as honest, objective and done with taste, I also don’t fall into any camp that separates different officers and there traits, start going along those lines and you end up with cliques and before you know it chips start to form on peoples shoulders and the result ‘’arguments and mudslinging’’.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2012 10:31:01 GMT -6
Ian: The battle group in the United States Army was nothing like what the Germans or anyone else used. NOTHING.
There were two itterations, the original form in 1956-57 and the reorganized version in 1959 until the last one was abolished in 1964, in favor of the ROAD battalion.
1956-57: This organization was essentially a regimental headquarters, with four, four rifle and a weapons platoon companies. It also had a fifth company which was a mortar (4.2" or 107mm) battery. There were five battle groups in a division, along with a five company armor battalion. Field Artillery was divided into two battalions. One battalion had five batteries (ratio of 1 per BG) of 105mm howitzers. The other battalion had one battery of 155mm howitzers and an Honest John battery.
In 59 this was reorganized into a battle group (still five per division) of a headquarters and five, three rifle and a weapons platoon companies, and a combat support company with all of the enablers, recon, anti-armor, heavy mortar and the like. The five company armor battalion remained unchanged. The artillery was reorganized into five composite battalions, one battery of 105mm and one battery of 155mm howitzers. A sixth battalion was Honest John.
In practice a battle group would have the battle group reinforced with a tank company, an engineer company, and an artillery battery (later a battalion) There would be five basic groupings per division that was supposed to be just the thing for the cellular battlefield envisioned under conditions of atomic warfare hense the overall name Pentomic (Penta meaning five and atomic speaks for itself).
All this looks very good on paper but wars are not fought on paper. It was the brainchild of the Ridgeway/Taylor airborne mafia, and it actually worked quite well for our three airborne divisions organized under the concept. It was a disaster on so many levels for the rest of the Army. In fact the Army knew it had a Bozo on its hands by early 58 and organizational studies were inintiated which led to ROAD in 1962. Fred could probably comment on the mechanized experimentation with battle groups in the 3rd ID in Germany which laid the groundwork for the reorganized armored and mecanized division of 1962, the first being the 5th ID here at Carson.
Don't ever confuse though the Kamfgruppe of mission oriented all arms with the U S effort. Apples and oranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 22, 2012 10:32:42 GMT -6
Ian,
Yes... I believe Custer considered himself on the offensive almost to the time he was overrun on Cemetery Ridge. With a couple of my own adjustments, the only person-- I believe-- who has gotten this thing right is the archaeologist, Richard Allan Fox, Jr. To me, his thesis is brilliant, and brilliant from every aspect, every angle.
Dark Cloud, in many ways is correct when he questions the efficacy of conclusions drawn from this battlefield digging, but Fox spins out his yarn using that archaeology as a support mechanism, very much as I use military logic and reason.
Conditions were such as to almost lull people to sleep in this battle-- and do not take that comment literally. The Indians had fewer rifles than many people think; the dust and smoke played an increasingly important and little-understood role; the Indians were more incompetent than most believe... incompetent, as we view organized fighting... and because of the spatial confusion brought about by multiple troop locations, the Indians were slower to react than many believe.
All these conditions could easily cause a commander to underestimate or misread his tactical position... and this is what I-- and Dr. Fox-- believe.
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 22, 2012 10:43:14 GMT -6
Fred: I suppose you were in at the tail end of the battle group. Queenie, Yes, I got in near the end. I was assigned to Company D, 1st Battle Group, 30th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division, in late 1962, after leaving Benning. The following summer was the reorganization into ROAD... the old concept was ROCID, wasn't it? (Whatever the hell that stands for!) Or some such thing.... I always thought the BG was too unwieldy and I liked the flexibility of the three-brigade, multiple and mixed battalion make-up it engendered. One could easily make it a multi-arms task force, designed for specific duties, and the concept was really quite good. The only criticism most of us had was historical: keep the regimental nomenclature and the heck with "battalions." If I remember correctly, after re-org, we were known as 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry. There was another battle group in our Kaserne, but I do not recall if it was called 2nd BG, 30th Infantry or 1st BG, 32nd Infantry, and then after re-org, 2nd of the 30th or 1st of the 32nd. Anyway you look at it, however, the 1/30 was the unit in Germany: trained, led, and commanded by William E. DePuy, to me, the finest military mind in the American army, post-WWII. Almost a god to me. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 22, 2012 11:02:34 GMT -6
Got it Chuck, I was under the impression of the term battle group meaning a force grouped together to take on a particular task and not a unit formed up on a permanent basis, I was reading the other day about U.S. Armour prior to WW2 and the 1920 act stating that the tank was an infantry weapon not Cavalry, they had to name their tanks ‘’Combat Cars’’ to get around this problem, thank god for forward thinkers like Patton.
Fred, I have seen Fox’s book for sale on amazon for 32 dollars Inc p&p, may take a copy when the funds are available.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2012 11:13:15 GMT -6
Fred: There were two, ROCID (Reorganization Objective Current Infantry Division) and ROCAD (Reorganization Objective Current Airborne Division). Both were under the PENTOMIC umbrella. The further study in 1958 was MOMAR (Modern Mobile Army) which was "son of battle group" and that evolved into the 1960 ROAD (Reorganization Objective Army Division), implemented in the summer of 1962.
The big difference in the PENTOMIC era was the the infantry divisions organized under ROCID were as I described above. The airborne or ROCAD divisions were similar but had their own organizational quirks due to method of insertion more than anything else. The Armored Divisions were essentially the same as WWII (but beefed up with a couple of extra battalions) retaining the brigade like combat commands.
What ROAD did was to give divisions a common base and common command and control structure regardless of "type". In theory the infantry division was a tailored mixture of mostly infantry with one or two tank battalions. The Armored and mechanized division differed only in the mixture of mechanized and tank battalions assigned. The airborne division was pure, although it did have an armor battalion equiped with the unarmored M56 SPAT (a piece of unadulterated crap).
The Third Division as organized under ROCID was as follows
2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry
2nd Battle Group, 4th Infantry
1st Battle Group 7th Infantry
1st Battle Group, 15th Infantry
1st Battle Group, 30th Infantry
2nd Battle Group, 38th Infantry
1st Battlion, 68th Armor
1st Battalion, 9th Artillery
1st Battalion, 10th Artillery
This was the 1957 line up, Some changes were made in 59 reorganizing the artillery, but I believe the cav, armor and the battle groups remained the same. 1st Battle Group, 32nd Infantry (The Queen's Own) was in Korea with the 7th ID and 2nd Battle Group, 32nd Infantry was inactive.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2012 11:54:45 GMT -6
Ian: The National Defense Act of 1921 abolished the "temporary" Tank Corps of World War I. It gave all of the tanks to the infantry, which eventually organized the 66th, and 67th Infantry in active status and the 68th on the inactive roles. One regiment was stationed at Benning and one regiment at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.
The combat car thing was a realization that the horse had been overcome by events. The law prevented the cavalry from having tanks. When the 1st and later the 13th Cavalry were mechanized in the early 1930's they required track layers so the combat car was a designation of convience.
Don't look to Patton as the inovator.He was a puss in that regard. He wrote a few articles for the Cavalry Journal in the early 1920's but the branch elders got to him and told him that if he wanted a future in the Army he better learn to love the smell of horse crap and not gasoline. He toed the mark thereafter only emerging from the horsey set in the Louisianna Maneuvers of 1940. Serano Brett and Adna Chaffee were the visionaries who said screw the career I am going to do what I feel best for the Army. Brett paid the price before the war. Chaffee lived to see his dreams fulfilled, but it wrecked his health and died before Pearl Harbor.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 22, 2012 12:37:32 GMT -6
... M56 SPAT (a piece of unadulterated crap). I do not remember this thing. When I came in, they were doing away with that dual-engined monstrosity of an APC... I don't even remember the designation. The only APCs I even played with were the M-113s and their derivative, the M-577. There was also-- a year or so later-- an airmobile, long-gunned tank of sorts... I do not remember its designation. Was there also another smaller APC that recon units used? I seem to remember one. That's the baby, not the 32nd! I always get that rout-step group mixed up with the real warriors. Again, if memory serves me correct, Frank Milburn was the division CG. Freeman, as elegant a general as you would ever hope to see, was USAREUR/NATO CG. The good old days, right? Thanks, Queenie! Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2012 12:55:59 GMT -6
Fred: The M56 SPAT was a 90mm gun mounted on an unarmored track. Everyone was exposed. We had five or six in the combat support company, assault gun platoon (anti-armor). The 106mmRR was in the weapons platoons of the rifle companies as an anti-armor section..
The two engined APC was the M59, and the engines would never run in concert with one another.
The small recon track was the M114.
Can't think of an airmobile tank. The SPAT had a gun that looked out of perportion to its overall size. It was air dropable. The only other tank in Europe at the time that might be what you are thinking about was the M41 Walker Bulldog, a very fast light tank with a long barreled 76mm. You might have found a couple of them in the combat support company recon platoon. Stateside they had two. In Europe I think there were three. Nominally air dropable, It was essentially a product improved M24 Chaffee with a high velocity 76 vice a 75mm useless popgun. You found a lot of them in the cav squadrons of the day.
Paul Freeman was as good as they come. Commanded the 23rd Infantry Regiment at Chipyong-ni.
Frank MilDREN
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2012 13:14:47 GMT -6
Fred: In those days the M113's were in the division transportation battalion. I think there were two companies in that battalion. One company was equiped with enough M113's to move the footmobile rifle platoons of one battle group in a single lift. The other company was a truck company with sufficient trucks to move another complete battle group in one lift. Where the 3rd ID was later, post 1960 or 61, different is they had one battle group, I believe 1BG, 30th Inf, was experimentally equiped, owning their 113's as opposed to attached, laying the groundwork for mechanized infantry battalions. The Armored Infantry (in the AD's) were four company affairs with M59's
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 22, 2012 13:14:54 GMT -6
The M56 SPAT was a 90mm gun mounted on an unarmored track. Everyone was exposed. Yep, that's the dog! Soon as I read "exposed," that was it! Junk! And that is exactly what they told us when we used them at Benning, summer and fall of '62. More junk. Yikes! How could I have forgotten that?! Getting old, I guess. No, this was the one. The weird gun, everyone open.... The 1960s version of the Osprey boondoggle. Do not recall seeing any of these. I remember the M-48 was being replaced by the M-60, though if I remember correctly, in Vietnam they wanted the 48 because it wasn't as heavy and they didn't need the up-graded gun... certainly not at 50 yards!!! I agree. Had the occasion as a young 1st looie when I first got the NATO job (CENTAG) to bump into him at a dress ball; he took several minutes to chit-chat with me. Wish I still had the picture. Is that what his name was? Then he made 4-stars, didn't he? Interesting... I served with and knew three 4-star guys: DePuy, Haig, and Joulwan. I liked Haig, but I think he was more political than anything else. The other two were real warriors. Interesting little stat: despite being like 7 years younger and a LTC and assistant brigade commander or brigade-3-- I forget which-- while DePuy had two stars and was division CG, Haig got his 4th star several months before DePuy. Shows you what politics and the USMA can do for you. I believe DePuy was ROTC out of North or South Dakota. Joulwan was West Point, one year ahead of me in DOR. I made captain. <g> (But I got there very fast! <g>) Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2012 13:27:13 GMT -6
The M48 was a great tank. The version that went to Vietnam was the A5 with the 105 vice the original 90mm. We had the A5 in the cavalry troop of our seperate brigade. When they were re-equiped with M60A1's later the tankers pissed in their britches. Did not like them at all.
Freeman almost got his shorts in a twist when the 23rd retreated on a different route following the Chinaman's Hat-Valley of Death thing in November 1950. I once worked for the S-3 of the 38th Infantry under George Peplo who was caught in the Valley of Death. He always said Freeman betrayed them and could not stand the man. Freeman did what he thought best though and did the right thing by disobeying orders. Kaiser the division commander was relieved, (officially he caught a bad cold). There is an interesting letter exchange between Freeman and his rabbi, and the rabbi cleared Freeman, which was right and just.
That S-3 Warren Hodges commanded the 1st Infantry Brigade (later the 197th/Dollar Ninety Seven) the school troops brigade while you were at Benning in 1962. He later ended up as a MG - TAG-MD. I believe he is no longer with us. Great guy. He was crazy about my wife (professionally)who also worked for him at one time.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2012 15:11:26 GMT -6
You know Fred, now that I think about it the 48A3's with the 90mm went to Vietnam. The 48A5 with the 105 stayed here in the states. The A5 was a re-manufactured A3 with the gun and some of the bells and whistles of the M60 as add on's
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Mar 22, 2012 16:27:46 GMT -6
The lone Armor Bn in the 82nd had the M551 Sheridan. This vehicle was finally retired about 1995. I have done some combat drops that included a few Sheridans.
Or maybe you two still recall the M001 Flintstone, which was Fred Flintstone's foot propelled combat carrier, with a catapult on top. Hard to tell with you FOGs.
v/r
Young Pup.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 22, 2012 17:21:33 GMT -6
Dear Pup, I guess that's why the SPAT didn't ring a bell, though Queenie's description of it did. M-551 Sheridan... that's the one I was thinking of. We used some of these for route security. Range was limited, though. That sound you hear at night, rattling through what you think are your heating pipes, is actually ossified gray matter breaking off and rattling around in my brain. That's where the expression, "Fred's got rocks in his head," comes from. Best wishes, Fred. Rubble |
|
