NEW Query re Empire Land units

[el cid again]

Are British Empire divisions uniformly two divisions - or does it vary?

The US Army manual on the subject says it varies - but I am talking PTO only.
It says the norm is three brigades per division - but I don't see examples of that.

The Indian Army has brigades and divisions of two brigades - both with the SAME OB to
start but DIFFERENT formations. Is that intentional?

The British Army has NO MMG at all in the brigade. Na da. Wow. Many LGMs, and
astonishing numbers of 2 inch mortars - 64 looks like. Also no HMGs. On the other hand,
there is a "machine gun battalion" of 16 mmg - at corps level - and missing from the game.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Are British Empire divisions uniformly two divisions - or does it vary?

The US Army manual on the subject says it varies - but I am talking PTO only.
It says the norm is three brigades per division - but I don't see examples of that.

The Indian Army has brigades and divisions of two brigades - both with the SAME OB to
start but DIFFERENT formations. Is that intentional?

The British Army has NO MMG at all in the brigade. Na da. Wow. Many LGMs, and
astonishing numbers of 2 inch mortars - 64 looks like. Also no HMGs. On the other hand,
there is a "machine gun battalion" of 16 mmg - at corps level - and missing from the game.

The two brigade Indian Inf divisions are intentional, as they were common. What is not portrayed is that most Indian Brigades had a BN of British regulars and two BN's if Indian Troops. The MG BN was a corp level unit until around mid 41, IIRC, where they bacame attached to Infantry Divisions. The British infantry units went through several confusing to&e changes throughout WWII, much more than the US Divisions.

True, the Vickers WC MG, which these BN's were equipped with, were defined by the British as Medium MG's. However, they are equivalent to the Browning M1917 which was considered a heavy MG by the US Army. There was an excellent book on Infantry weapons I used to own that explained that the disgnation of light, medium, and heavy MG's cannot always be determined by the caliber of the ammo, but the role that the MG was used in must usually the determinant. Light MG's are basically squad support weapons, with the squad usually, but not always, built around the weapon. An excellent example of this is the MG34 and the Bren. For the US, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was the squad automatic weapon. It is not considered a true light MG.

For medium MG's, these were usually tripod mounted intended for platoon support weapons. Here the M1919, as well as the MG-34 and Japanese T-92 were in this catagory. Heavy MG's wer sondidered Company support Weapons controlled by the BN. They were almost always WC MG's capapble of being fired for prolonged periods, which is why I consider the Vickers of this catagory, an was indeed its role in WWI. You also find the larger calibers included in this, such as the .50cal and even 20mm.

[el cid again]

According to my US Army manual on the British army - tehre are NO MMG at all in the brigades!
Nothing but light "Bren" guns.

Can that be right? I have attached some arty - since the game seems to do so - there is NONE in the infantry -
and IT has some AAMG.

[ATCSMike]

This might help. I looks like they had 3 brigades sometimes 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ar ... d_brigades

Mike

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

According to my US Army manual on the British army - tehre are NO MMG at all in the brigades!
Nothing but light "Bren" guns.

Can that be right? I have attached some arty - since the game seems to do so - there is NONE in the infantry -
and IT has some AAMG.

The British loved the BREN, rightly so, as it is probably one of the best, if not the best, MG in its class in WWII. They used it for quite a few things. You are correct, there are no organic MMG's in the Brigade, at least from what I have seen. They do have a lot of Brens though. Each BN had a lot of them mounted in Bren Carriers. The British Independent brigades normally would have a Regiment of FA (24guns), as well as a company of combat engineers.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: ATCSMike

This might help. I looks like they had 3 brigades sometimes 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ar ... d_brigades

Mike

This might correct for modern day (current) British army, which is what this site shows. However, in WWII the British regular Divisions were retangular, although commonwealth divisions could vary with only two brigades.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: ATCSMike

This might help. I looks like they had 3 brigades sometimes 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ar ... d_brigades

Mike

This might correct for modern day (current) British army, which is what this site shows. However, in WWII the British regular Divisions were retangular, although commonwealth divisions could vary with only two brigades.

Huh? Rectangular? I don't think so..., standard British Infantry Division had three Infantry "Brigades" (which were Regimental-sized units of three batallions each). As to "Medium Machineguns", a Division generally had a MG Battalion of 36-48 water cooled Vickers MMG's. When the Division was broken down into "Brigade Groups", a company of MMG's was generally attached to each (as was an artillery "Regiment")

[ATCSMike]

Here's some more:

http://orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/000_admin/000oob.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/british-di ... rld-war-ii
http://home.adelphia.net/~dryan67/order ... chor537313

Mike

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

According to my US Army manual on the British army - tehre are NO MMG at all in the brigades!
Nothing but light "Bren" guns.

Can that be right? I have attached some arty - since the game seems to do so - there is NONE in the infantry -
and IT has some AAMG.

This is from memory.

The standard (not light) commonwealth infantry division was an *administrative* organisation that supplied and (often) tactically controlled 2-5 (usually 3) brigades. (Corps or army was sometimes in tactical control, especially in North Africa.) CW brigades contained three infantry battalions, each consisting of four small infantry companies and supporting weapons. They could also contain an artillery "regiment" with 24 gun-howitzers and various companies from the divisional assets. This organisation was designed to control 2-4 kilometers of front by direct fire with two forward battalions (each with two companies up and two back), backed by a single battalion in a rear line. The artillery would be deployed anywhere convenient from the forward battalions back to the brigade rear boundary.

Divisional assets included a reconnaisance battalion--basically an infantry battalion with motor assets, an engineer battalion, a machine gun battalion (which held the heavy MGs, originally intended to organise the divisional stop line), antitank and antiaircraft battalions, and a *lot* of supply assets. Note *no* medium artillery battalion--corps held the medium (3 bn) and heavy (1 bn) artillery. In a major offensive, the division would be reinforced by an army tank brigade and other army assets.

The light division controlled two or more light infantry brigades and often had individual battalions attached. The light infantry brigades were standard brigades lightened by use of lighter weapons and artillery and the replacement of motor transport with animals.

Basically, commonwealth divisions had (potentially) the tactical flexibility (and limitations) of WWII German light/mountain/PG divisions (which were all administrative organisations for KGs). Japanese divisions were similar to WWI infantry divisions in their monolithic organisation (although they were more flexible tactically). This contributed to the success of Slim's army in rapid-tempo airmobile operations after the Imphal attack was defeated in 1944. Basically, Commonwealth command, control, and communications had finally become faster than Japanese C3.

Most early-war UK generals were not up to managing high tempo operations, which is the basic reason for the problems during 1939-42. It wasn't until the really slow-witted leaders were moved out of command positions that the Commonwealth forces actually began to approach their potential.

[el cid again]

The US Army manual on the British Army states the machine gun battalion - a form of infantry -
was a corps asset - not a divisional one. It states the infantry had NO artillery at all - but that
it was normal to support a brigade with a regiment of 24 guns. The British used a peculiar
organization with batteries of 8 - and sections of 4 - three batteries to the regiment. The artillery also
had an AAA company - and this had what we class as heavy AAMG. And - oddly - it had an anti-tank
company as well.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The US Army manual on the British Army states the machine gun battalion - a form of infantry -
was a corps asset - not a divisional one.

In which year? Definetely not true in 1942.
Why using US Army manual for non US Army TOEs?

[el cid again]

Well - because I have it! I am trying to figure this out because it may not be right.
Every other army wasn't right in our OBs after all. Someone complained there were
no 2 inch mortars or MG - and he was right. I created the mortars - but now want
to apply them Turns out they had a LOT of them! And I want to get the MG right -
if there are any?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The US Army manual on the British Army states the machine gun battalion - a form of infantry -
was a corps asset - not a divisional one.

That may have been accurate at the date of publication, but is not accurate for the war as a whole. The late war battalion consisted of three MG companies--each capable of organising one third of the division stop line, and a heavy mortar company. I've read the history of the MG corps.

It states the infantry had NO artillery at all - but that
it was normal to support a brigade with a regiment of 24 guns.

Administratively (and to a limited extent tactically) the artillery of an infantry division formed an artillery brigade. Operationally, the three regiments were usually attached to individual brigades. There's significant history I'm leaving unsaid in writing this, revolving around cost-cutting during the 1930s, and degree of centralisation in the division.

The British used a peculiar
organization with batteries of 8 - and sections of 4 - three batteries to the regiment.

At the start of the war, it was two batteries of 8--each assigned a segment of the front rather than a battalion to support.

The artillery also
had an AAA company - and this had what we class as heavy AAMG. And - oddly - it had an anti-tank
company as well.

That varied by time period and theater, depending on whether there was a significant tank and/or air threat to defend against. In NW Europe 1944, they had separate battalions.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The US Army manual on the British Army states the machine gun battalion - a form of infantry -
was a corps asset - not a divisional one. It states the infantry had NO artillery at all - but that
it was normal to support a brigade with a regiment of 24 guns. The British used a peculiar
organization with batteries of 8 - and sections of 4 - three batteries to the regiment. The artillery also
had an AAA company - and this had what we class as heavy AAMG. And - oddly - it had an anti-tank
company as well.

Not all that odd, really. US Field Artillery Regiments of 1940 had an anti-tank platoon with 37mm guns and the 155mm units also had a heavy A/T battery with 3in guns (this was a towed version of the gun used in the hull of the M3 Medium tank and the early half-track tank destroyers). Not sure why (Navy, not Army) but it could be for protection of the batteries in the event of an armoured breakthrough.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The US Army manual on the British Army states the machine gun battalion - a form of infantry -
was a corps asset - not a divisional one. It states the infantry had NO artillery at all - but that
it was normal to support a brigade with a regiment of 24 guns. The British used a peculiar
organization with batteries of 8 - and sections of 4 - three batteries to the regiment. The artillery also
had an AAA company - and this had what we class as heavy AAMG. And - oddly - it had an anti-tank
company as well.

Not all that odd, really. US Field Artillery Regiments of 1940 had an anti-tank platoon with 37mm guns and the 155mm units also had a heavy A/T battery with 3in guns (this was a towed version of the gun used in the hull of the M3 Medium tank and the early half-track tank destroyers). Not sure why (Navy, not Army) but it could be for protection of the batteries in the event of an armoured breakthrough.

It was an artillery mission, so the weapons had to be given to an artillery unit...

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Same situation was in French divisions, where artillery regiments had ATG battery for anti armour defence. So nothing unusual.

[timtom]

Here's one opinion:

http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain ... iv_me.html

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: ATCSMike

This might help. I looks like they had 3 brigades sometimes 4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ar ... d_brigades

Mike

This might correct for modern day (current) British army, which is what this site shows. However, in WWII the British regular Divisions were retangular, although commonwealth divisions could vary with only two brigades.

Huh? Rectangular? I don't think so..., standard British Infantry Division had three Infantry "Brigades" (which were Regimental-sized units of three batallions each). As to "Medium Machineguns", a Division generally had a MG Battalion of 36-48 water cooled Vickers MMG's. When the Division was broken down into "Brigade Groups", a company of MMG's was generally attached to each (as was an artillery "Regiment")

Oops slip of the penit seems, I meant triangular....

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The US Army manual on the British Army states the machine gun battalion - a form of infantry -
was a corps asset - not a divisional one. It states the infantry had NO artillery at all - but that
it was normal to support a brigade with a regiment of 24 guns. The British used a peculiar
organization with batteries of 8 - and sections of 4 - three batteries to the regiment. The artillery also
had an AAA company - and this had what we class as heavy AAMG. And - oddly - it had an anti-tank
company as well.

British Field Regiments had no AT Bty. If a Brigade Group had an AT Bty attached, this Bty was detached from the divisional AT Regiment. But British infantry battalions sometimes had an AT platoon as part of the battalion HQ (4x 2pdr; manned by infantry)personnell). Sometimes means: When the AT guns were available (they received the guns when the Royal Artillery AT Regiments converted to 6pdrs).

Australian battalions definetely had the AT platoons when fighting in New Guinea.

[Early-war British brigades had an AT coy with 25mm French AT guns as brigade assets and the Royal Horse Artillery Regiments of British Armoured Divisions had one AT bty and two field artillery coys; but nothing of this was found in the CBI, apart from one RHA bty with 7th Armoured Brigade]

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

According to my US Army manual on the British army - tehre are NO MMG at all in the brigades!
Nothing but light "Bren" guns.

Can that be right? I have attached some arty - since the game seems to do so - there is NONE in the infantry -
and IT has some AAMG.

Kiwi infantry battalions had a MG coy with 12 Vickers or Lewis MMG. Aussie infantry battalions had a MG platoon with 4 Vickers MMG. Not sure about Indian battalions[&:]